Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of West Bengal VS Jashimuddin Mondal...
2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1352 : The High Court''''s power to transfer an investigation to the CBI under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to rare cases where the State Police investigation is deemed unfair or partisan. Merely relying on letters submitted by a petitioner is insufficient to justify such a transfer. The High Court must provide clear and reasoned justification for transferring the investigation to the CBI; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. Therefore, if an investigation is not properly conducted or lacks adequate reasoning for transfer to CBI, further investigation may be warranted, particularly if the original transfer was based on inadequate grounds such as mere letters without substantive evidence of bias or unfairness.Checking relevance for NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
Checking relevance for Samaj Parivartan Samudaya VS State of Karnataka...
2012 3 Supreme 656 : Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an investigating agency is empowered to conduct further investigation even after the filing of a charge-sheet. This power is statutory and does not require prior permission from the Magistrate. The law permits further investigation to arrive at the truth and ensure real and substantial justice, even if it causes delay. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited, but further investigation is allowed. The court has the inherent duty to ensure fair and proper investigation, and any lapse in this regard amounts to an error of jurisdiction. The filing of a charge-sheet does not end the investigative process, and the investigating agency may continue to gather further evidence, which must be reported to the Magistrate in the form of a ''''further report''''.Checking relevance for Vinay Tyagi VS Irshad Ali @ Deepak...
2012 0 Supreme(SC) 903 : The superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct ''''further investigation'''', ''''fresh'''' or ''''de novo'''' and even ''''reinvestigation''''. This power can be exercised when the investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and that in order to do complete justice and where the facts of the case demand, it is always open to the Court to hand over the investigation to a specialised agency. The power to order ''''reinvestigation'''' or ''''de novo'''' investigation falls in the domain of higher courts, that too in exceptional cases. The court may direct ''''further investigation'''' or ''''reinvestigation'''' as the case may be, on the facts of a given case. Where the Magistrate can only direct further investigation, the courts of higher jurisdiction can direct further, re-investigation or even investigation de novo depending on the facts of a given case. The court''''s specific order determines the nature of investigation. The investigation must be fair and proper, unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law, with the twin purpose of bringing out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. If the investigation is found to be unfair, tainted, undesirable or based upon no truth, the court may pass a specific order cancelling the investigation and excluding it from the record.Checking relevance for Athul Rao VS State of Karnataka...
2017 8 Supreme 578 : After the framing of charges and taking of cognizance by the Magistrate, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Further investigation may only be ordered on the request of the investigating agency, and only in circumstances warranting further investigation due to the detection of material evidence, to secure a fair investigation and trial. The High Court granting liberty to a party to apply to the trial court for further investigation does not constitute a direction to the trial court to order such investigation. The trial court retains discretion to reject such applications if it finds no need for further investigation, especially when charge-sheets are already based on extensive evidence and charges have been framed. In this case, the trial court correctly rejected the application for further investigation, and the High Court erred in directing such investigation merely because liberty had been granted earlier, without assessing whether further investigation was necessary.Checking relevance for Dilip K. Basu VS State of West Bengal...
1992 0 Supreme(SC) 1037 : The court has directed that a Senior Additional District and Session Judge, Delhi, be nominated to investigate/enquire into the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased while allegedly in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate, as the matter requires further probe under the court''''s supervision. The investigation must determine the truth or otherwise of the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit, and the inquiry must be completed within four weeks, with a report submitted to the court. The Enforcement Directorate and the widow of the deceased may be represented during the inquiry, and the judge may summon any necessary persons. This directive constitutes a formal order for further investigation due to concerns about the propriety of the original investigation.
