Further Investigation can be ordered at post cognizance stage
- shrey singh
- Jan 8, 2020
- 4 min read
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.478-479 OF 2017 decided on October 16, 2019.
3 Judges Bench
R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Facts
A FIR was lodged against a person and investigation was conducted by the police, which resulted in a charge-sheet. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) took cognizance and issued summons to the accused regarding offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 511 IPC.
Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared before the said Magistrate and an application was filed by Accused for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and another application for discharge.
The Magistrate dismissed the applications that were filed for further investigation stating that the facts sought to be placed by the applicants were in the nature of evidence of the defence that would be taken in the trial. Likewise the learned Magistrate also rejected the discharge applications that were made.
A Revision application was filed by accused against the order of JMFC in Session Court and Session Court allowed the application so as to order further investigation.
Then the matter reached High Court by means of Criminal Revision and the High Court held that, as a matter of law, the Magistrate does not possess any power to order further investigation after a chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken.
Hence, an appeal was filed by Accused against the order of High Court in Supreme Court.
Question of law
Whether further investigation can be ordered at post cognizance stage and after chargesheet has been filed?
Argument Advanced
Appellant
Respondent
Shri Dushyant Dave argued placing reliance on a number of provisions of the CrPC, and a number of our judgments, that the High Court was wholly incorrect as a matter of law, in holding that post-cognizance a Magistrate would have no power to order further investigation into an offence.
The Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents, supported the judgment of the trial court and the High Court, stating that there is no doubt that without filing a cross-FIR, what was sought to be adduced is evidence which may perhaps amount to a defence in the trial to be conducted, which would be impermissible.
Held
The Court held that further investigation can be ordered by the court in a case after cognizance is taken. Following was the reasoning given by the Court
Interpretation of the word ‘investigation’ vis-à-vis S.156(3) & S. 173(8)
The Law before this case was that the power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) can only be exercised at the pre-cognizance stage meaning thereby that after cognizance is taken under S. 190, the magistrate cannot order further investigation. The Court in this case said that “Investigation” will include all the proceedings under the CrPC for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer. “All” would clearly include proceedings under Section 173(8) as well. Thus, when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order “such an investigation”, such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8). The “investigation” spoken of in Section 156(3) would embrace the entire process, which begins with the collection of evidence and continues until charges are framed by the Court, at which stage the trial can be said to have begun.
Concept of ‘further investigation’ vis-à-vis Constitution
The Court said that Article 21 demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC,
Regarding Interest of Justice
The Court said that it would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding
Judgments Overruled
· Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177
· Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka (2018) 14 SCC 298
· Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi (2019) 5 SCC 542
· Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 60
· Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Comments