Submitted by;ambrish pandey
Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R.
Udhayakumar, [(2008) 5 SCC 413], opined as under :-
At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of
Section 173 of the Code. From
a plain reading of the above
section it is evident that
investigation under sub-section
(2) of Section 173 of the Code,
the police has right to further
investigate under sub-section
(8), but not fresh investigation
or reinvestigation
11. We have referred to the aforementioned decision only because Mr.
Tulsi contends that in effect and substance the prayer of the appellant before
the learned Magistrate was for reinvestigation but the learned Magistrate had
directed further investigation by the Investigating Officer inadvertently.
The Investigating Officer may exercise his statutory power of further
investigation in several situations as, for example, when new facts come to
its notice; when certain aspects of the matter had not been considered by it
and it found that further investigation is necessary to be carried out from a
different angle(s) keeping in view the fact that new or further materials came
to its notice. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the learned Magistrate
or the Superior Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is
found to be tainted and/or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the
ends of justice.1
Supreme Court of India
Kishan Lal vs Dharmendra Bafna & Anr. on 21 July, 2009
2. Jurisdiction of a Magistrate to direct reinvestigation of a case fromtime to time as laid down under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is the question involved
in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 13th March, 2008
passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
in Crl. R.C. No. 245 of 2008 allowing the criminal revision application filed 2
by the respondent No.1 from an order dated 13th February, 2008 passed by
the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
3. Indisputably, on or about 30th December 2005, a complaint was
lodged by the appellant against Accused Nos. 1 to 9, namely, Lakshmichand
Bafna (Accused No.1), Dharmendra Bafna (Accused No.2), Mahendar
Bafna (Accused No.3), Rakesh Bafna (Accused No.4), G.R. Surana
(Accused No.5), Shantilal Surana (Accused No.6), Vijayaraj Surana
(Accused No.7), Dinesh Chand Surana (Accused No.8) and Maran (Accused
No.9) before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai inter alia
alleging that they connived together from the beginning and cheated him a
sum of Rs.4.65 crores by denying to return the money which was given to
them for purchase of gold. It was alleged that the amount was entrusted on
various dates from 06th October 2005 to 17th November 2005. Although they
have admitted the liability to the extent of 4.95 crores, but did not return
either any gold or money to the complainant.
4. On or about 12th January 2006, an application for grant of anticipatory
bail before the High Court of Madras was filed by all the accused stating
that the Accused Nos. 5 to 8 are brothers and are the directors of their family
business known as M/s Surana Corporation Limited. It was admitted that 3
the Accused No.2 is the sub-agent of Surana Corporation Limited who
introduces investors.
5. A First Information Report ("FIR") was lodged by the appellant
against all the accused on or about 22nd January, 2006 in the Central Crime
Branch Station.
Allegedly, on or about 27th January 2006, in the aforementioned bail
application, the said accused filed statement of accounts of the appellant/de
facto complainant mentioned in the Multi Commodity Exchange of India
Limited ("MCX") which is a Government approved On-Line Trading
Exchange of Bullion, Energy, Metal and Oil, admitting that they had
undertaken bullion trade with MCX by using the appellant's money.
Apart from the said FIR, the parties have filed some Civil Suits also.
Indisputably, however, Banwarlal Sharma (Accused No.10) was
subsequently added. It is furthermore not in dispute that the investigation
was transferred to CBCID, Chennai by the Director General of Police, Tamil
Nadu.
On or about 8th October, 2007, a charge-sheet was filed before the
learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai only against 4
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code ("IPC"). The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the said
accused.
On or about 29th October 2007, on the premise that the learned
Magistrate had not taken cognizance against the other accused, the appellant
filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court for
setting aside the said order. The said application was disposed of by the
learned single judge of the High Court in the following terms:
"8. Therefore in the considered view of this order, the above criminal original petition can be disposed of with the following directions:- The petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate petition before the III Metropolitan Magistrate,George Town, Chennai, incorporating his grievances and the alleged lapses on the part of the investigating agency and seek further investigation in the case. On such petition being filed, the learned Magistrate, shall consider the same in accordance with law and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that a case has been made out by the petitioner for ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate is entitled to invoke the powers under Sections 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and direct the respondent to further investigate into the matter." 5
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, appellant filed
an application for further investigation before the learned Magistrate and by
an order dated 13th February 2008, a direction for further investigation was
issued, observing:
"While considering the averments made in this petition, this Court holds that several kinds of issues were not undisclosed and beyond from knots of doubts. If those doubts were not cleared through suitable investigation, no opportunity could be given to get it revealed the true picture. While considering the nature of the case, it is important to find out how the amount given by the petitioner utilized, when it was utilized and on which state the amount has been kept. But, as alleged on behalf of the petitioner, it is the duty of this Court to find out the truth by holding suitable investigation of the matters which were unearthed. In the event of this court refusing to find out the true picture by ordering a reinvestigation, either party is likely to get hardships and losses. If the reinvestigation is ordered, a situation for handing out an opportunity for both the parties to bring out the hidden truths in this case and the facts in this case and this Court holds that it would pave a way for conducting a trial in the proper direction. As this court holds that certain cause of actions available in this case, and in view of the necessity to find out several facts in this case and in accordance of the orders of the High Court of Madras in CRL.O.P. 33354 of 2007, it is to meet the ends of justice, the case could be ordered for reinvestigation and thereby the petition presented by the Petitioner/complainant u/s 173(8) is allowed."
6
Accused No.2 filed revisional application thereagainst before the High
Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, the
said revision application has been allowed.
6. Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would contend:
(i) The High Court committed a serious error in opining that no
direction for further investigation or reinvestigation can be
directed after cognizance of an offence is taken.
(ii) The application for a direction for further investigation having
been filed only in terms of the order of the High Court dated
17th December 2007, another learned judge of the same High
Court could not have taken a contrary view.
(iii) Direction for further investigation having been made by the
learned Magistrate upon taking into consideration all aspects of
the matter, the High Court committed a serious error in
interfering therewith.
7
(iv) The High Court committed a serious error in passing the
impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into
consideration that Accused No.6 being father of Accused No.2
and Accused Nos. 5, 7 and 8 being his brothers; were running
and operating Surana Corporation Limited and having
admittedly invested the said amount in MCX, they must be held
to have conspired together for misappropriation of the
aforementioned amount of Rs.4.65 crores entrusted by the
appellant to the accused No.2, and consequent refusal on their
part to return the amount on the ground that they have suffered
a huge loss.
7. Mr. U.U. Lalit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused other than accused Nos. 2 and 6, on the other hand, urged:
(i) Despite the fact that the learned Magistrate had the requisite
jurisdiction to direct further investigation, such order could not
have been passed in the instant case as all aspects of the matter
had been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officers. 8
(ii) Further investigation, the learned counsel would urge, could be
directed only in the event where investigation was not carried in
respect of certain aspects of the matter or where during trial it
came to the notice to the court that some facts which were
relevant for arriving at the truth had not been gone into.
8. Mr. M.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State would take us through the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the State to contend that the investigation had been carried out in a fair and
diligent manner touching all aspects of the matter.
9. It is now a well settled principle of law that when a final form is filed
by any Investigating Officer in exercise of his power under sub-section (2)
of Section 173 of the Code, the first informant has to be given notice. He
may file a protest petition which in a given case may be treated to be a
complaint petition, on the basis whereof after fulfilling the other statutory
requirements cognizance may be taken. The learned Magistrate can also
take cognizance on the basis of the materials placed on record by the
investigating agency. It is also permissible for a learned Magistrate to direct
further investigation.
9
The Investigating Officer when an FIR is lodged in respect of a
cognizable offence, upon completion of the investigation would file a police
report. The power of investigation is a statutory one and ordinarily and save
and except some exceptional situations, no interference therewith by any
court is permissible.
In Naresh Kavarchand Khatri vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2008) 8
SCC 300], this Court held:
"6. The power of the court to interfere with an investigation is limited. The police authorities, in terms of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exercise a statutory power. The Code of Criminal procedure has conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct transfer of an investigation from one Police Station to another in the event it is found that they do not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction.
In Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[2009 (7) SCALE 214], this Court held: 10
"9. Interference in the exercise of the statutory power of investigation by the Police by the Magistrate far less direction for withdrawal of any investigation which is sought to be carried out is not envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate's power in this regard is limited. Even otherwise, he does not have any inherent power. Ordinarily, he has no power to recall his order.
This aspect of the matter has been
considered by this Court in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. [(1970) 1 SCC 653], wherein the law has been stated as under : "6. Without the use of the
expression "if he thinks fit", the second alternative could have
been held to be independent of
the first; but the use of this
expression, in our opinion,
makes it plain that the power
conferred by the second clause
of this section is only an
alternative to the power given
by the first clause and can,
therefore, be exercised only in
those cases in which the first
clause is applicable.
7. It may also be further noticed
that, even in sub-section (3) of
Section 156, the only power
given to the Magistrate, who
can take cognizance of an
offence under Section 190, is to
order an investigation; there is
no mention of any power to
stop an investigation by the
police. The scheme of these
11
sections, thus, clearly is that the
power of the police to
investigate any cognizable
offence is uncontrolled by the
Magistrate, and it is only in
cases where the police decide
not to investigate the case that
the Magistrate can intervene
and either direct an
investigation, or, in the
alternative, himself proceed or
depute a Magistrate subordinate
to him to proceed to enquire
into the case. The power of the
police to investigate has been
made independent of any
control by the Magistrate."
Interpreting the aforementioned provisions vis-a-vis the lack of inherent power in the Magistrate in terms of Section 561-A of the Old Criminal procedure Code (equivalent to Section 482 of the new Code of Criminal procedure), it was held :
"10. This interpretation, to
some extent, supports the view
that the scheme of the Criminal
Procedure Code is that the
power of the police to
investigate a cognizable
offence is not to be interfered
with by the judiciary. Their
Lordships of the Privy Council
were, of course, concerned only
with the powers of the High
Court under Section 561-A
CrPC, while we have to
interpret Section 159 of the
12
Code which defines the powers
of a Magistrate which he can
exercise on receiving a report
from the police of the
cognizable offence under
Section 157 of the Code. In our
opinion, Section 159 was really
intended to give a limited
power to the Magistrate to
ensure that the police
investigate all cognizable
offences and do not refuse to do
so by abusing the right granted
for certain limited cases of not
proceeding with the
investigation of the offence."
Yet again in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. [(1976) 3 SCC 252], this Court, upon comparison of the provision of the old Code and the new Code, held as under :
"7. Section 156(3) occurs in
Chapter XII, under the caption :
"Information to the Police and
their powers to investigate";
while Section 202 is in Chapter
XV which bears the heading:
"Of complaints to Magistrates". The power to order police
investigation under Section
156(3) is different from the
power to direct investigation
conferred by Section 202(1).
The two operate in distinct
spheres at different stages. The
first is exercisable at the pre-
cognizance stage, the second at
13
the post-cognizance stage when
the Magistrate is in seisin of the
case. That is to say in the case
of a complaint regarding the
commission of a cognizable
offence, the power under
Section 156(3) can be invoked
by the Magistrate before he
takes cognizance of the offence
under Section 190(l)(a). But if
he once takes such cognizance
and embarks upon the
procedure embodied in Chapter
XV, he is not competent to
switch back to the pre-
cognizance stage and avail of
Section 156(3). It may be noted
further that an order made
under sub-section (3) of Section
156, is in the nature of a
peremptory reminder or
intimation to the police to
exercise their plenary powers of
investigation under Section
156(1). Such an investigation
embraces the entire continuous
process which begins with the
collection of evidence under
Section 156 and ends with a
report or charge-sheet under
Section 173. On the other hand,
Section 202 comes in at a stage
when some evidence has been
collected by the Magistrate in
proceedings under Chapter XV,
but the same is deemed
insufficient to take a decision
as to the next step in the
prescribed procedure. In such a
situation, the Magistrate is
14
empowered under Section 202
to direct, within the limits
circumscribed by that section
an investigation "for the
purpose of deciding whether or
not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding". Thus the
object of an investigation under
Section 202 is not to initiate a
fresh case on police report but
to assist the Magistrate in
completing proceedings already
instituted upon a complaint
before him."
We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that recently a Division
Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2008)
2 SCC 409] while dealing with the power of the court to direct the police
officer to record an FIR in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the
Code observed that the Magistrate had also a duty to see that the
investigation is carried out in a fair manner (correctness whereof is open to
question).
10. An order of further investigation can be made at various stages
including the stage of the trial, that is, after taking cognizance of the offence.
Although some decisions have been referred to us, we need not dilate
thereupon as the matter has recently been considered by a Division Bench of 15
this Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat [2009
(7) SCALE 559] in the following terms:
"16. This Court while passing the order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of Constitution of India did not direct re- investigation. This court exercised its jurisdiction which was within the realm of the Code. Indisputably the investigating agency in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code can pray before the Court and may be granted permission to investigate into the matter further. There are, however, certain situations, where such a formal request may not be insisted upon.
17. It is, however, beyond any cavil that `further investigation' and `re-investigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a `State' to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a re-investigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction.
Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R.
Udhayakumar, [(2008) 5 SCC 413], opined as under :-
"7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of
Section 173 of the Code. From
a plain reading of the above
section it is evident that even
after completion of
16
investigation under sub-section
(2) of Section 173 of the Code,
the police has right to further
investigate under sub-section
(8), but not fresh investigation
or reinvestigation..."
11. We have referred to the aforementioned decision only because Mr.
Tulsi contends that in effect and substance the prayer of the appellant before
the learned Magistrate was for reinvestigation but the learned Magistrate had
directed further investigation by the Investigating Officer inadvertently.
The Investigating Officer may exercise his statutory power of further
investigation in several situations as, for example, when new facts come to
its notice; when certain aspects of the matter had not been considered by it
and it found that further investigation is necessary to be carried out from a
different angle(s) keeping in view the fact that new or further materials came
to its notice. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the learned Magistrate
or the Superior Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is
found to be tainted and/or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the
ends of justice.
12. The question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature a
direction for further investigation would be necessary. 17
Mr. Dhayalan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Metro Wing,
Chennai in his counter affidavit inter alia brought to this Court's notice that
the matter was investigated by (1) Tr. S. Saravana Brabu, Inspector of
Police, Chennai CCB, (2) Tr. Salathraj, Assistant Commissioner of Police,
CCB Chennai (3) Tr. S. Veiladurai, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Job
Rocket and Video Piracy, Chennai City, (4) Tr. C. Edward, Inspector of
Police, CCB, Chennai and (5) Tr. K.G. Rajakumar, Assistant Commissioner
of Police, CCB, Egmore, Chennai apart from him.
We have noticed hereinbefore that the investigation was transferred to
CBCID by an order dated 29th March 2007 passed by the DGP, Tamil Nadu.
The matter, thus, has been investigated by two specialized agencies. The
deponent of the counter affidavit categorically stated that he had made a
thorough investigation and upon consideration of the materials gathered
during investigation identified that there was no connection between the
money of the de facto complainant and Accused Nos. 3 to 10 and hence the
final form was filed in their favour. It was pointed out that the complainant
had filed the aforementioned application under Section 173(8) of the Code
principally on the premise that no investigation had been carried out in
respect of three documents being (1) The additional grounds raised in the 18
anticipatory bail application, (2) The plaint filed by Accused No.2 in the
Civil Suit filed by him and (3) the letter written by Mahaveer Surana, the
authorized signatory of Surana Corporation Ltd., to the Chief Minister's cell.
It was furthermore pointed out:
"(b) The second accused came forward with improbable stories for him to escape from prosecution. The version of the accused in his anticipatory bail application is without any material to support the same and was not believed. Similarly, the version of A2 in the suit filed by him was also not believed as it was not borne out by any documentary evidence. Similarly, the letter written by Mahaveer Surana to the Chief Minister's Cell is also a document intended to save A-1 and A-2 from the crime and hence not to be believed. The version of the de facto complainant, the petitioner herein and also of A-2 to establish the connection between the money paid by the de facto complainant to A-2 with A-3 to A-10 is not borne out by any documentary evidence. Hence, the case against A-3 to A-10 were dropped. All the three documents are that of the accused. The documents cannot be proved through accused. No accused can be compelled to be a witness against himself. The documents could be hit by under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India."
The investigating officer was of the opinion that the amount of
Rs.4.65 crores was given to Accused No.2 for both trading in gold and silver 19
on the basis of orally agreed terms. Accused No. 2 was introduced by
Accused No.1. Accused No.2 had given the said amount on 18th November
2005 to M/s Vinayaga Vyapar Limited on various dates on its own risks and
on the basis whereof M/s Vinayaga Vyapar Ltd. entered transactions with
M/s Surana Corporation Ltd. on 17th November 2005 and all payments had
been made through cheques only. Upon giving the details, the Investigating
Officer had come to the following conclusion:
"These transactions were for speculative trading only. It is stated in the FIR filed by the petitioner that the transaction between the petitioner and the A-2 Dharmendra Bafna are independent
transaction between themselves and no third party was involved. The petitioner did not make any agreement or contract with the A-2 Dharmendra Bafna for doing gold bullion forward trade business and failed to obtain the trade order, trade execution order and trade confirmation order from the A-2 Dharmendra Bafna and did not deal in cheque transactions. The petitioner has given Rs.4.65 crores by cash and entered upon a shady transaction with the A4 Dharmendra Bafna."
In regard to the statements made by the accused in their application
for anticipatory bail with regard to account with M/s MEGHA GG, it has
been contended that the same cannot be construed to be an admission on the
part of the Accused Nos. 3 to 10 especially when the petition had not been 20
signed by any of the accused and all the documentary evidence and material
gathered during the investigation were to the contrary. The said Shri
Dhayalan had also stated in great details as to why Accused Nos. 3 to 10
were dropped. He had also taken into consideration the dealings by and
between the parties inter se as also the litigations filed by them against each
other. It is neither necessary nor desirable to notice the statements made
therein by us as we are concerned with a question of law.
13. It is correct that the revisional court should not interfere with the
discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate unless a
jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed.
We have noticed hereinbefore the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. His order that "several kinds of issues were not disclosed and
beyond from knots of doubts" is vague in nature. It has not been pointed out
that in what respect the investigation has not been carried out. What are
hidden truths required to be unearthed had also not been pointed out. The
learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that the investigation had been
carried out by two different agencies and by responsible police officers. It
has not been found that the Investigating Officer was in any way biased
towards the complainant. Furthermore, if the contention of Mr. Tulsi is 21
correct, the question as to whether Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were involved in
the matter could be pointed out from the materials which had already been
brought on record. Furthermore, whether the admissions made in the
application for anticipatory bail were binding on them, the same being a
matter of inference can also be urged. The other and further remedies as
pointed out can be resorted to as also invocation of the provisions of Section
319 of the Code at the stage of trial is also permissible in law, if an
appropriate case is made out therefor. We furthermore clarify that any
observations made by the High Court or by us should not prejudice the
either party and the learned Magistrate should consider the matter on its own
merit and without in any way being influenced by the same, if any occasion
arises in this behalf in future.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
......................................J. [S.B. Sinha]
......................................J. [Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
22
July 21, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment