2008 (1) TMI 798 - HC - Indian Laws

Powers of Court - Metropolitan Magistrate has directed further investigation into the matter and filing of a supplementary charge-sheet - Held that - Be that as it may, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioners is ex facie liable to be rejected. The present case is not of that category at all and is one where the Court is of the opinion that the police has failed to carry out the task assigned to it in terms of the proper investigation. The impugned order records the reason for the Court to form such an opinion and the IO took time to carry out the further investigation and filed the supplementary charge-sheet. The present petition is not only without any merits but also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Issues:
1. Legality of directing further investigation after taking cognizance of the offense.
2. Interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Conflict between judgments regarding the Magistrate's power to order further investigation.
4. Compliance with the procedure for further investigation as discussed in a Supreme Court judgment.

Issue 1: Legality of directing further investigation after taking cognizance of the offense
The petitioners challenged an order directing further investigation after the trial court found no investigation against the premises owner. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate lacked the power to order further investigation after taking cognizance of the offense, citing a judgment by a Single Judge. However, the learned APP contended that a Full Bench judgment empowered the Magistrate to direct further investigation even after cognizance is taken to ensure proper administration of justice. The Court noted the conflict between the judgments cited by the parties.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The petitioners relied on Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for further investigation after a report is forwarded to the Magistrate if new evidence is obtained. The learned APP pointed out a Full Bench judgment that upheld the Magistrate's power to order further investigation under this provision even after cognizance is taken. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing the need for further investigation with the expeditious disposal of cases.

Issue 3: Conflict between judgments regarding the Magistrate's power to order further investigation
The Court observed that the judgment cited by the petitioners did not consider the Full Bench judgment presented by the APP, leading to a conflict in legal interpretation. The petitioners failed to reference the Full Bench judgment in their arguments, which the Court deemed necessary. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to relevant precedents and distinguishing judgments appropriately.

Issue 4: Compliance with the procedure for further investigation as discussed in a Supreme Court judgment
The petitioners raised concerns about the procedure followed for further investigation, referencing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of informing the Court and seeking formal permission for additional investigation. However, the Court noted that in the present case, the police had not fulfilled their investigative duties adequately, leading to the need for further investigation as per the impugned order. The Court dismissed the petition, considering it meritless and an abuse of the court process, imposing costs on the petitioners.

In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi addressed the conflicting judgments regarding the Magistrate's power to order further investigation, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and upholding the administration of justice. The Court dismissed the petition challenging the order for further investigation, highlighting the necessity of proper investigation to ensure justice is served effectively.

← Previous Next →