Rajasthan HC: S.193(9) of BNSS Bars Further Investigation After Filing Of Police Report Without Permission Of Trial Court

 Before parting, I may also hasten to add here that, in any case, where a report under section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has already been filed against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the learned trial court, in view of Section 193(9) of BNSS. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Section 193 of the BNSS, with emphasis on sub-clause 9 thereof, is reproduced herein below: {Para 7}

"SECTION 193: Report of police officer on completion of investigation

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (3): Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court."

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 1375/2023

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Arun Monga, J.

Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:39977,MANU/RH/1468/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are powers of Magistrate, police and accused regarding further investigation by police?

Thus, even where chargesheet or Challan has been filed by the police Under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC, the police can undertake further investigation in respect of an offence Under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC. [Para 47]

4. Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the various decisions, it is well settled that Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. [Para 64]

5.Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted Under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Prior to carrying out further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the Accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused while considering an application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. [Para 77]

6. The Second proviso to Section 17 of the 1988 Act directs that the offence referred to under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. Before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary. The argument canvassed on behalf of the Accused persons is that there is no such order of the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the chargesheet. This issue was not even raised before the High Court. Even otherwise, this is a question of fact and a matter of record. If it is the case of the Accused that there is no such order on record, the same may be pointed out to the trial court in the course of the trial. It is for the trial court to verify the record, look into it and take an appropriate call on this issue in accordance with law. [88]

Ratio Decidendi:

There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1300-1302 of 2023.

Decided On: 28.04.2023

State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0486/2023,2023 INSC 460.

Print Page

Whether The District Police Chief can order further investigation without permission from the Magistrate or Higher Court?

In the present case, as is clear from FR II that S. Anilkumar, Inspector of Police, Vaikom conducted further investigation as per Order No. D2-43642/16/K, passed by a police officer and not by any duly empowered judicial officer. {Para 18}

19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the concerned Magistrate. Referring to Vinay Tyagi (supra), this Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/1306/2022 : (2023) 1 SCC 48 noted that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further investigation or to file a supplementary report but investigation agencies, have not only understood it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. The doctrine of contemporanea exposito aids such an interpretation of matters which have been long understood and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with.

28. In terms of second question, the above discussion makes clear that the District Police Chief, Kottayam could not have ordered further investigation, as that power rests either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2023

Peethambaran  Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Decided On: 03.05.2023

Citation: MANU/SC/0522/2023

Print Page

Whether the court should hear accused before directing further investigation in a criminal case?

 In the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after considering one another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0402/1999 : (1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any direction for further investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court in paragraph 11 held as under:

11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential Accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020

Decided On: 02.03.2020

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah  Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0241/2020,(2020) 4 SCC 22

Print Page

Supreme Court: It is not necessary to hear accused before directing further investigation by police

 It is required to be noted that, as such, even the proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at this stage in an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, as observed by this Court in the case of W.N. Chadha

(supra); Narender G. Goel (supra) and Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra). In the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after considering one another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P.

(1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8)

CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any direction

for further investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court in

paragraph 11 held as under:

“11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct

the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any

inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the

court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is

made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only

result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for

all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of

being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not

burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2020

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah  Vs  State of Gujarat 

M.R. Shah, J.

Dated:March 2, 2020.

Citation: (2020) 4 SCC 22

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to hear accused before directing further investigation?

The question raised by the accused regarding summoning of the investigating officer by the trial court under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in terms with session's court directions, is no more res-integra as is well- settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Bhagwan Samrdha Sreepada vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: (1999) 5 SCC 740, holding that the power of the court to direct further investigation cannot have any inhibition and there is nothing to suggest under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Thus the issue raised by the accused (therein) does not fall for any further debate or discussion as sought by the accused.

Delhi High Court

Shubham Bansal vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 4 December, 2019

CRL.M.C. 2024/2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Print Page

Whether police can make investigation even though permission for further investigation was declined by magistrate?

There is no doubt that section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not talk about prior permission of the Magistrate even Vinay Tyagi's case (Supra) also does not mandate that further investigation without prior permission of the Magistrate is illegal or vitiated. But, in the instant case, the permission was indeed applied for and same was rejected by the Magistrate. No body asked the Police personnel to seek permission from the Magistrate but once they sought permission from the Magistrate and same was denied, there was no occasion for them to initiate further investigation in utter disregard and in violation of order of Magistrate dated 17.9.2012. Surprisingly, permission was sought and denied, yet investigation was conducted. In the instant case, several investigations have been conducted. First investigation resulted into final report. Second investigation resulted into charge-sheet under non-bailable and non-cognizable offences. The procedure laid down under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. says in explanation annexed with this provision that a report made by Police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint and police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. But, this did not satisfy bigwigs of Police department and they again ordered investigation by a different officer and made sure that charge-sheet is filed under cognizable and non-bailable offences.

28. I have absolutely no doubt that once a permission was sought and declined, then Police department Gautam Buddh Nagar did not have any authority to continue the investigation. Subsequent investigation illegal and vitiated. The charge-sheet dated 17.9.2013 subsequent to this investigation, is not sustainable. The procedure adopted by the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police reeks of mala fide and arbitrariness. The Apex Court in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1990 Lawsuit (SC) 701 has held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court would be justified in exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the charge-sheet.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Application No. 3384 of 2014

Decided On: 08.07.2016

 Arun Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bharat Bhushan, J.

Print Page

Whether magistrate can direct further investigation after taking cognizance of offence?

 In contradistinction, Sections 156, 190, 200, 202 and 204 of the Cr.P.C clearly outline the powers of the Magistrate and the courses open for him to chart in the matter of directing investigation, taking of cognizance, framing of charge, etc. Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance is taken and the accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of any competence to direct further investigation either suo motu or acting on the request 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 Cr.P.C 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 Cr.P.C. adumbrated hereinabove.

Resultantly, direction for further investigation issued by the Magistrate on the application of the informant at the stage of final arguments of the case under Ss. 406, 420, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477B and 120B IPC, held to be rightly set aside by High Court, particularly when considering aspect of delay request of the informant could not be entertained by the Magistrate

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. 

Criminal Appeal No. 1171 of 2016

Decided on February 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 86
This judgment is overruled in following caselaw. Please see the post 

Supreme Court: Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC Even At Post-Cognizance Stage 

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/10/supreme-court-magistrate-can-invoke.html

Print Page

Whether police can do further investigation without permission of court?

   The next point is regarding the permission of court for further

investigation. In this case, police reported that it was informed to the

court and sought a stay of proceedings. Further investigation is the

prerogative of the Police, permission is only a formality or courtesy.

Under such circumstances, no illegality committed by the Police in

respect of further investigation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

     MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

  10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

                   Crl.MC.No. 3783 of 2015

           RADHAKRISHNAN
        Vs

             STATE OF KERALA
           Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4763 Kerala

Print Page

Whether court can direct police to conduct further investigation on request of de facto complainant?

 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that much
water has flown under the bridge since Reeta Nag's case (supra).  The issue
as to whether at the instance of the de facto complainant can the Police be
directed to undertake further investigation has been considered
subsequently, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali [AIR
2013 SC (Cri) 292], and their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
held that under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to unravel the
truth of the matter, a de facto complainant can request the Magistrate to
direct the Police to undertake further investigation, when the facts and
circumstances of the case so demands.  This decision has been reiterated in
Chandra Babu vs. State [2015 (5) CTC 214 (SC)].  (Also see P.Ravindranath vs.
K.Chandragandhi [2015 (3) MWN (Cr.) 236 and the latest decision in Ram Saran 
Varshney vs. State of U.P. [(2016) 2 SCC (Cri.) 190]).
 Now, it is well settled that not only at the instance of the
Police, even at the instance of the de facto complainant, further
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can be undertaken by the Police to
find out the truth of the matter.  But, Subordinate Court is not competent to
direct fresh, new, de novo investigation, which is entirely different from
further investigation.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 17.08.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.181 of 2016 
and 
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2543 of 2016 

                                                                                        
Samuel Jebakani                                       ... Petitioner /   
Petitioner /
                                                                 De facto Complainant (LW-1) 
-vs-

The Superintendent of Police

Print Page

Whether police can further investigate case even after filing of chargesheet?

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 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 re-investigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 223). It was, inter alia, observed as follows:  "24. The dictionary meaning of "further"

(when used as an adjective) is "additional; more; supplemental". "Further" investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports -- and not fresh report or reports -- regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation."

REPORTABLE 

Supreme Court of India

Ramachandran vs R. Udhayakumar & Ors on 13 May, 2008

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1105 of 2007)


Citation:2008 CRI. L.J. 4309

Print Page

When magistrate can order police to conduct further investigation?

 In the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., MANU/SC/0302/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 2078, the Apex Court held that:-

"13. In Om Prakash Narang and another v. State (Delhi Admn.) (MANU/SC/0216/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 1791) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course f proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the Courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law if there is necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case."

29. A Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Rajneesh Kumar Singhal Vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi), MANU/DE/0011/2001 : 2001 (2) Crimes 346 (FB), held that the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. even in a case where police after investigation filed the challan and the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The rationale for the same is explained in the judgment that restricting the powers of a Magistrate would adversely affect administration of justice.

30. It is imperative to note that the Code has compartmentalized the powers to be exercised at different stages of a case, namely, at the time of taking cognizance, after cognizance is taken, after appearance of the accused, and after commencement of trial on charge being framed. It is settled law that the power of 'further investigation' undoubtedly exists in the first stage, may exist at the second and Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits to examine any witness during the course of trial. But at the third (intermediate) stage, this power has not been conferred on a court. All that has to be done at that stage is to look into the materials already on record and either frame charge, if a prima facie case is made out, or discharge the accused bearing in mind relevant provisions relating to the same incorporated in Chapter XVII of the Code, titled 'The Charge'. Of course, the discharge would not prevent further investigation by police and submission of charge-sheet also thereafter, if a case for the same is made out.

31. Admittedly, the case in hand falls in the second stage as in the present case though cognizance has been taken but the accused has not been asked to put appearance, therefore, the argument that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in ordering further investigation of the case as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has no power to switch back the case from post-cognizance stage to pre- cognizance stage has no substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 5033/2014

Decided On: 19.10.2015

Appellants: Surender Kumar Sharma
Vs.
Respondent: State and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Suresh Kait, J.

Print Page

Distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation by police

The reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0517/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 346, the relevant para 17 reads thus:

17. From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of the police report Under Sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation Under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "further" is additional, more, or supplemental. "Further" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.
(Emphasis supplied)

Equivalent Citation: 2016(1)SCALE200,AIR 2016 SC373

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 975 of 2015)

Decided On: 07.01.2016

Appellants: Awadesh Kumar Jha and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Print Page

Whether police remand can be sought U/S167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused who is arrested at stage of further investigation?

In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our opinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh

Dalmia (supra) in upholding refusal of remand in police

custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood

in custody after his arrest under Section 309 CrPC. We have

already noted above the principle of law laid down by the three

judge bench of this Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim

Kaskar (supra) that police remand can be sought under

Section 167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused arrested at the

stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by

the investigating agency. This Court has further clarified in

said case that expression ‘accused if in custody’ in Section

309(2) CrPC does not include the accused who is arrested on

further investigation before supplementary charge sheet is

filed. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the

refusal of police remand in the present case is against the

settled principle of law laid down by this Court.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1081 OF 2015

Central Bureau of Investigation V Rathin Dandapat and others 

Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant

Citation; 2015 (4) Crimes 347 SC, AIR 2015 SC 3285

Print Page

Whether accused who is arrested during further investigation can be remanded by court as per S 167(2) of CRPC?

In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our
opinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh

Dalmia (supra) in upholding refusal of remand in police
custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood
in custody after his arrest under Section 309 CrPC. We have
already noted above the principle of law laid down by the three
judge bench of this Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar (supra) that police remand can be sought under
Section 167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused arrested at the
stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by
the investigating agency. This Court has further clarified in
said case that expression ‘accused if in custody’ in Section
309(2) CrPC does not include the accused who is arrested on
further investigation before supplementary charge sheet is
filed.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1081 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2015)
Central Bureau of Investigation V Rathin Dandapat and others 
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)3678 SC
Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Print Page

Whether fresh FIR can be registered even though application for further investigation U/S 156 of crpc is rejected by Magistrate?

The solitary contention advanced at the hands of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants was, that since in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant on 08.08.2007, the prayer for further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be rejected, by a Court of competent jurisdiction on 04.10.2007, it was not open to the complainant to raise the same grievance, through a subsequent First Information Report (dated 10.10.2007) wherein the same facts were alleged. It was also contended, that even if such a complaint had been filed by the complainant, it was not permissible in law to proceed thereon.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the solitary contention advanced at the hands of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. As noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that the application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined by the Court of competent jurisdiction at Deoband vide order dated 04.10.2007. The prayer made by the complainant in the aforesaid application was to order further investigation in the matter. The declining of the aforesaid prayer, would not affect the merits of the controversy, nor would it reflect the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant in the First Information Report which was subsequently lodged on 10.10.2007. Consequent upon the filing of the subsequent FIR dated 10.10.2007, the matter came to be investigated by the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police. A perusal of the chargesheet dated 01.11.2007 reveals, that the same came to be filed on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the statement of the witnesses, as also, the inspection of the place of incident, the medical report, and relevant photographs. In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for us to say, that the order passed by the concerned Court on 04.10.2007 would have any effect on the veracity of the merits of the allegations made by the complaint on 10.10.2007 or the proceedings which would emanate therewith.

Equivalent Citation: 2015(2)RCR(Civil)865,2015 ALLMR(CRI)3712 SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2021 of 2009

Decided On: 18.03.2015

 Mahendri  Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:J.S. Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Print Page

further investigation by police with permission of magistrate

Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation.

 

Supreme Court of India

Ram Lal Narang Etc. Etc vs State Of Delhi (Admn.) on 10 January, 1979

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1791, 1979 SCC (2) 322

Bench: Reddy, O Chinnappa

PETITIONER:
RAM LAL NARANG ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF DELHI (ADMN.)
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/01/1979
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION:
1979 AIR 1791 1979 SCC (2) 322
ACT:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173-Whether the Police have powers to further investigate, after the magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence-Scope and ambit of Section 173 Cr. P.C.

Print Page

police has power to further investigate the case

Supreme Court of India

Rama Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2009

Author: P Sathasivam

Bench: S.B. Sinha, P. Sathasivam

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 370 of 2009 Rama Chaudhary .... Appellant(s) Versus
State of Bihar .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Criminal Revision No. 437 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 in and by which, after finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet, the High Court rejected the criminal revision filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 19.02.2008 passed in Sessions 1
Trial No. 63 of 2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application of the prosecution to summon the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet. 3) Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) On the basis of fardebayan of Smt. Champa Devi - wife of Awadh Yadav in Siwan Mofussil Police Station case No. 8 of 2001 was registered against the appellant and others on 13.01.2001 under Section 364/34 of IPC. b) On 08.08.2003, an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also added. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 29.08.2003 against the appellant and other five accused under Section 364/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the said charge-sheet, the prosecution has conveyed that they are going to examine altogether 18 witnesses. c) On 11.03.2004, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 120-B, 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution had examined 21 witnesses.

Print Page