TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed several official documents, including the rent agreement for the aforesaid flat, based on fraudulent information and false representations that Padmapriya was his lawfully wedded wife. In that regard, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the Appellant before the Trial Court, on 20th August, 2008 and 16th July, 2009, respectively, for offence punishable Under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Pursuant thereto charges have been framed by the Trial Court against the Appellant. However, no charge has been framed against the Appellant for offence punishable Under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of Indian Penal Code, in relation to the actual death of Padmapriya. 2. Pending the aforementioned criminal trial, Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) JMFC at Udupi with regard to the same incident, being PCR No. 21 of 2009, alleging that the Appellant was liable to be tried for offence punishable Under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate ordered an investigation by the local police Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of this complaint. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. No. 31/2008 for further investigation into the offences Under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. This application was however rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 7th August, 2014. The Trial Court has observed that the charge-sheet filed by the police indicated that statements of 76 witnesses had been recorded during the investigation and four articles seized. The Trial Court also noted that the investigating officer had investigated the case from all angles in the context of the allegations in the complaint before filing the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet. The Trial Court, therefore, held that there was no need for further investigation. The Trial Court also made it clear that if, before conclusion of the trial, there was any evidence which revealed the commission of an offence by the Appellant, then appropriate charges could be framed against him. 4. Respondent No. 2 challenged the aforesaid decision of the Trial Court by preferring a petition Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16th September, 2014, allowed the said petition. The High Court nevertheless posed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s judgment dated 21st October, 2013, that the claim of Respondent No. 2 in the private complaint was based on the confessional statement of the Accused and two witnesses recorded by COD police during the course of the investigation in Crime No. 109/2008, which has already come on record in CC No. 31/2008. In this context, the Trial Court has noted that it will be open to Respondent No. 2 to request the Court to frame additional charges for offence punishable Under Sections 497, 498 and 309 of Indian Penal Code at the appropriate stage. It is thus contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court refusing the prayer for further investigation, which was just and proper in the fact situation of the present case. According to the Appellant, in the facts of the present case, the question of directing further investigation was completely ruled out by the Trial Court on analysing the relevant material. Therefore, the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, without overturning the said satisfaction recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of tangible material before it, could not have interdicted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 will be apposite to advert to the dictum in Paragraphs 48 to 51 of the said decision which read thus: 48. As adverted to hereinabove, whereas Section 311 of the Code empowers a Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if construed to be essential to be just decision of the case, Section 319 authorizes a Court to proceed against any person, who though not made an Accused appears, in course of the inquiry or trial, to have committed the same and can be tried together. These two provisions of the Code explicitly accoutre a Court to summon a material witness or examine a person present at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, if it considers it to be essential to the just decision of the case and even proceed against any person, though not an Accused in such enquiry or trial, if it appears from the evidence available that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st or prayer of the complainant/informant. The direction for investigation by the Magistrate Under Section 202, while dealing with a complaint, though is at a post-cognizance stage, it is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such a direction for investigation is not in the nature of further investigation, as contemplated Under Section 173(8) of the Code. If the power of the Magistrate, in such a scheme envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure to order further investigation even after the cognizance is taken, Accused persons appear and charge is framed, is acknowledged or approved, the same would be discordant with the state of law, as enunciated by this Court and also the relevant layout of the Code of Criminal Procedure adumbrated hereinabove. Additionally had it been the intention of the legislature to invest such a power, in our estimate, Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have been worded accordingly to accommodate and ordain the same having regard to the backdrop of the incorporation thereof. In a way, in view of the three options open to the Magistrate, after a report is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After investigation of the said complaint, charge-sheet was filed on 20th August, 2008 for offence punishable Under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer then filed a supplementary charge-sheet on 16th July, 2009. The Trial Court has already framed charges and taken cognizance as a consequence of which the case is set down for trial, being CC No. 31/2008. Respondent No. 2, however, filed a private complaint in respect of the same incident only on 1st August, 2009, bearing PCR No. 21/2009. That complaint was finally quashed by the High Court vide judgment dated 21st October, 2013, whilst noting that the complaint by Respondent No. 2 was based on the confessional statement of the Accused and statements of two witnesses recorded by the COD police during investigation of Crime No. 109/2008, which material was already part of charge-sheets filed by the investigating officer in CC No. 31/2008. The High Court, however, granted liberty to Respondent No. 2 to make application before the Trial Court in the following terms: ORDER i. xxx xxx xxx ii. xxx xxx xxx iii. Liberty is reserved to Respondent No. 2 to make necessary applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 13. Notably, the second complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was quashed by the High Court vide judgment dated 21st October, 2013, relying on the decision in T.T. Antony (supra). Be that as it may, what is significant to note is that the High Court has not overturned the satisfaction recorded by the Trial Court that the two charge-sheets filed by the investigating agency in connection with the same incident were founded on statements of 76 witnesses and seizure of four articles. The statements of the Accused and two witnesses so recorded were already on record in CC. No. 31/2008. Further, charge-sheets have been filed after thorough investigation of the allegations made by the complainant from all angles and charges have also been framed. The case has been set down for trial. Considering all these, it was not just and proper to direct further investigation. This opinion reached by the Trial Court was not in conflict with the liberty given by the High Court to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
