Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1706 - SC - Indian LawsFraming of charges - direction for further investigation - whether the High Court was justified in allowing the prayer of Respondent No. 2 for further investigation Under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the fact situation of the present case? - HELD THAT:- The question as to whether, after framing of charges and taking cognizance, it is open to the Magistrate to direct further investigation either suo motu or on an application filed by the complainant/informant is no more res integra. In a recent decision of this Court (to which one of us, Justice Dipak Misra was party) in the case of AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VERSUS SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [2017 (2) TMI 1539 - SUPREME COURT], after analysing earlier decisions on the point, it has been held that neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Further investigation in a given case may be ordered only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand. It is this well considered decision of the Trial Court, made subject matter of challenge before the High Court in the petition filed by Respondent No. 2. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court, on the one hand, noted its reservation as to how a complaint for the offence punishable Under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code would be consistent with the allegations for the offence punishable Under Sections 306, 497, 498 of Indian Penal Code, yet, it proceeded to direct further investigation on the sole consideration that in the earlier round of proceeding instituted by the Appellant for quashing of the private complaint filed against him by Respondent No. 2 in respect of the same incident, liberty was given to Respondent No. 2 to approach the Trial Court for issuing direction to the investigating officer for further investigation Under Section 173(8) - The High Court was of the view that rejection of the application preferred by Respondent No. 2 for further investigation, therefore, would run counter to the liberty so granted and, on that consideration, directed the Trial Court to issue direction to the investigating officer for further investigation in respect of allegation made by the Respondent No. 2 in his complaint. The High Court committed manifest error in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court in the fact situation of the present case. In other words, the Trial Court had rightly rejected the prayer of Respondent No. 2 for further investigation, for the reasons noted in its order dated 7th August, 2014 - Appeal allowed.
|