2009 (8) TMI 1263 - SC - Indian Laws

Commission of offence u/s 467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code - Whether after charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency u/s 173(2) of the CrPC, and charge has been framed against some of the accused on the basis thereof and the other co-accused have been discharged, the Magistrate can direct the investigating authorities to conduct a re-investigation or even further investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC? - HELD THAT - Once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under Section 173(8). The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or direct a re-investigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code. In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de facto complainant under Section 173(8), was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to re-investigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a re-investigation on the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto complainant. ince no application had been made by the investigating authorities for conducting further investigation as permitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the other course of action open to the Magistrate as indicated by the High Court was to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code at the stage of trial. No reason to interfere with the order of the High Court since it will always be available to the Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 if any material is disclosed during the examination of the witnesses during the trial.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a Magistrate can direct re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after charge-sheet and framing of charges.
2. Whether a Magistrate can order re-investigation after discharging some accused persons.
3. Whether the High Court correctly quashed the Magistrate's order for re-investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Special Leave Petition addressed the question of whether a Magistrate can direct re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after the charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed against some accused. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate had the authority to order further investigation based on the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and cited the decision in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 614 to support this argument. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate's order for re-investigation was valid under the law.

Issue 2:
Another aspect of the case involved whether a Magistrate can order re-investigation after discharging some accused persons. The High Court, relying on the principle established in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981) 1 SCC 500, held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct re-investigation after framing charges against some accused and discharging others. The High Court emphasized that the Magistrate could utilize Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. during the trial if new material emerged against the discharged individuals.

Issue 3:
The High Court's decision to quash the Magistrate's order for re-investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents. The High Court maintained that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering re-investigation after discharging certain accused persons. The High Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and emphasized that actions under the law must be conducted as prescribed by the statute. The High Court's decision was supported by legal principles established in previous cases such as Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd.'s case AIR 1966 SC 1047 and Sankatha Singh's case AIR 1962 SC 1028.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the Magistrate's order for re-investigation. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's reasoning that the Magistrate had acted beyond his jurisdiction in ordering re-investigation without an application from the investigating authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Magistrate could utilize Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. during the trial if new material surfaced. The judgment reinforced the importance of following statutory procedures and legal principles in criminal proceedings.