2015 (7) TMI 1226 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of reinvestigation - whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have directed for reinvestigation? - whether it could have directed for reinvestigation by another investigating agency? - Held that - A Magistrate can disagree with the police report and take cognizance and issue process and summons to the accused. Thus the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to ignore the opinion expressed by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts that have emerged from the investigation. Having stated thus we may presently proceed to deal with the facet of law where the Magistrate disagrees with the report and on applying his independent mind feels there has to be a further investigation and under that circumstance what he is precisely required to do. High Court has fallen into error in its appreciation of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has to be construed in the light of the eventual direction. The order in fact as we perceive presents that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was really inclined to direct further investigation but because he had chosen another agency he has used the word reinvestigation As we have already indicated the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has basically directed for further investigation. The said part of the order cannot be found fault with but an eloquent one he could not have directed another investigating agency to investigate as that would not be within the sphere of further investigation and in any case he does not have the jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation by another agency. Therefore that part of the order deserves to be lancinated and accordingly it is directed that the investigating agency that had investigated shall carry on the further investigation and such investigation shall be supervised by the concerned Superintendent of Police. After the further investigation the report shall be submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall deal with the same in accordance with law. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion relating to any of the factual aspects of the case. Thus the order passed by the High Court is set aside except where it has held that the learned Magistrate could not have allowed another agency to investigate. We have clarified the position in the preceding paragraph.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's annulment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order directing further investigation.
2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct reinvestigation by another agency.
3. The High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
4. The Magistrate's power under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's annulment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order directing further investigation:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order directing further investigation. The High Court had annulled the order on the grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a re-investigation. The Supreme Court noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had found the initial investigation biased and had directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct further investigation if he independently applies his mind to the facts and finds it necessary.

2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct reinvestigation by another agency:
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Magistrate can direct further investigation, he does not have the jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation by another agency. The Court referred to the legal position that a Magistrate can disagree with the police report and direct further investigation but cannot order reinvestigation by a different agency. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order directing the CBCID to investigate was beyond his jurisdiction and thus unsustainable.

3. The High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for delving into the merits of the case in its revisional jurisdiction. It reiterated that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and primarily on questions of law. The High Court had analyzed the evidence in detail and concluded that there were discrepancies, which was beyond the scope of its revisional powers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's factual analysis was unsustainable.

4. The Magistrate's power under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
The Supreme Court discussed the scope of a Magistrate's power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which allows for further investigation. It referred to precedents, including Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, to highlight that a Magistrate can direct further investigation if he finds the initial investigation insufficient. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases to ensure justice. The Supreme Court concluded that while the Chief Judicial Magistrate was correct in directing further investigation, he overstepped by assigning the task to another agency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order except for the part where it held that the Magistrate could not have allowed another agency to investigate. The Court directed that the further investigation be conducted by the original investigating agency under the supervision of the concerned Superintendent of Police, with the report to be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further action in accordance with the law.