9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Indian Penal Code. That on completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet against the Accused-Appellant for the offences Under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. That at the time of framing of the charge and considering the charge-sheet papers, the learned Magistrate discharged the Appellant-original Accused vide order dated 05.02.2013. However, while discharging the Accused and/or after the Accused was discharged, in the same order, the learned Magistrate directed the Additional Commissioner of Police (West) Delhi to make appreciation of quality of the investigation done in the case and to analyse the process of efficacy of sending any charge sheet before the prosecution branch for the purpose of scrutiny. Learned Magistrate also observed and directed that the case requires further investigation to reach a logical conclusion and the same be done responsibly and the report be filed on 11.04.2012 (sic). 3.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 05.02.2013 by which the learned Magistrate directed further investigation and to submit the report, the Appellant-original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ode of Criminal Procedure. 4.3 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-original Accused that the order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation after the Accused is discharged is even hit by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.4 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-original Accused has vehemently submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation after the Accused was discharged, the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the distinction between the powers to be exercised by the learned Magistrate at pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage. It is submitted that the powers which may be available to the Magistrate at pre-cognizance stage cannot be exercised at post-cognizance stage. 4.5 In support of his above submissions, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-original Accused has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537 as well as in the case of Reeta Nag v. State of West Beng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrate was justified in ordering further investigation. 5.2 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State that, as observed and held by this Court, learned Magistrate can take cognizance on the basis of the materials placed on record by the investigating agency. It is also observed that it is also permissible for the Magistrate to direct further investigation. It is submitted that, as observed by this Court, the Magistrate has a duty to see that the investigation is carried out in a fair manner. It is submitted that it is observed that an order of further investigation can be made at various stages including the stage of the trial, that is even after taking cognizance of the offence. 5.3 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7 SCC 536, it is further submitted that when the learned Magistrate passed an order of further investigation for the ends of justice, the same is not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 5.4 Learned Counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigating officer after concluding the investigation submits the report/challan/charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate, are required to be referred to and considered. 6.2 In the celebrated judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) which has been subsequently followed consistently, this Court had the occasion to consider the procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate and/or the options which are available to the learned Magistrate at the time when the report/challan/charge-sheet is filed by the investigating officer before him. In that judgment, this Court in para 4 has observed and held as under: 4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate Under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded Under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of the Respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the first information report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him Under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the informant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation" and file supplementary charge-sheet. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such would support the view that we are taking in the present case. 6.4 In the case of Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 359, it is observed by this Court that when a report forwarded by the police to the Magistrate Under Section 173(2)(i) is placed before him, several situations arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issued process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct further investigation Under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. 7. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and even considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Sections 167(2), 173, 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, what is emerging is that after the investigation is concluded and the report is forwarded by the police to the Magistrate Under Section 173(2)(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Under Section 173(2) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and as observed hereinabove, it was always open/permissible for the Magistrate to direct the investigating agency for further investigation and may postpone even the framing of the charge and/or taking any final decision on the report at that stage. However, once the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report and the materials placed along with the report, discharges the Accused, we are afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto order the further investigation by the investigating agency. Once the order of discharge is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto direct the investigating officer for further investigation and submit the report. In such a situation, only two remedies are available: (i) a revision application can be filed against the discharge or (ii) the Court has to wait till the stage of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, at the same time, considering the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is always open for the investigating agency to file an application for further inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
