Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Samaj Parivartan Samudaya VS State of Karnataka...
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya VS State of Karnataka - 2012 3 Supreme 656 : The accused can object to further investigation, but the court has the power to permit it if it serves the cause of justice. Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the investigating agency has a statutory right to conduct further investigation even after filing a charge-sheet, and the court may allow such investigation if it helps in arriving at the truth and doing real and substantial justice. While the accused may raise concerns about prejudice, the court may still permit further investigation, especially if it is necessary to ensure fair and proper investigation and prevent influential persons from hijacking the process. In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6 SCC 346], the Supreme Court upheld the trial court''''s order allowing summoning of witnesses in furtherance of a supplementary charge-sheet, rejecting the contention that it would cause serious prejudice, emphasizing that the primary objective is to ensure justice and truth.Checking relevance for NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION VS STATE OF GUJARAT...
Checking relevance for K. Vadivel VS K. Shanthi...
K. Vadivel VS K. Shanthi - 2024 7 Supreme 504 : Yes, the accused can object to further investigation. In the case under review, the accused strongly opposed the application for further investigation, arguing that it was not maintainable without the consent of the public prosecutor, that it was intended to fill lacunae in the prosecution, and that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post-cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of victims/complainants. The accused also contended that such investigation can only be initiated by the investigating agency, not at the instance of the victim or the accused. The trial court accepted these objections and dismissed the application, holding that the petition was filed to prolong proceedings. This demonstrates that the accused have a legal right to object to further investigation, particularly when it is sought at the post-cognizance stage and lacks a reasonable basis.Checking relevance for Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi VS State Of Gujarat...
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi VS State Of Gujarat - 2004 3 Supreme 71 : The accused can object to further investigation, but the court may still permit it if it is necessary to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. The documents emphasize that while the accused has a right to be informed and not prejudiced, the court or investigation agency should not be deterred from further investigation merely due to potential delays in trial. The court may allow alteration or addition of charges during trial based on new evidence, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to meet the charge. However, the documents do not explicitly state that the accused can unilaterally block further investigation; rather, the focus is on the court''''s discretion and the need for justice, with safeguards for the accused''''s rights.Checking relevance for Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi)...
Checking relevance for ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN...
Checking relevance for Athul Rao VS State of Karnataka...
Checking relevance for Selvaraj, S/o. Alexander VS State Of Kerala...
Selvaraj, S/o. Alexander VS State Of Kerala - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 724 : Yes, an accused can object to or seek further investigation, particularly when it is necessary to preserve their right to contradict or impeach the testimony of prosecution witnesses. In this case, the accused (petitioner) filed petitions seeking to examine the Dy.S.P. (Rafeek), who conducted a formal enquiry on the feasibility of transferring the case to the Crime Branch, and to produce statements recorded during that enquiry. The court held that although no actual further investigation was conducted by the Crime Branch, the accused had a right to use the prevaricative statements made by witnesses during the enquiry for the purpose of contradiction and impeachment under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the right of the accused to use previous statements of witnesses for contradiction or to discredit them is an indefeasible right, not barred by Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused can effectively object to or request the use of such investigative materials when they are relevant to exposing contradictions in witness testimony.Checking relevance for Subramanian Swamy VS State of Assam...
Checking relevance for Jahanara Begum VS State of West Bengal...
Jahanara Begum VS State of West Bengal - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 184 : The accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner, including for Court monitored investigation. The first two modified reliefs claimed in the writ petition, if they were to be made by the accused themselves, would end up in being rejected. However, the Magistrate has the power to direct ''''further investigation'''' after filing of a police report under Section 173(6) of the CrPC, and this power is exercised by the court to ensure a fair and proper investigation. The accused may not initiate or object to such further investigation, but the court may order it suo motu or on application, depending on the facts of the case.
