In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a pivotal judgment regarding the application for further investigation in a contentious case. The decision comes after a series of legal battles between the parties involved, with the accused challenging the order for additional witnesses. The Court’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape, ensuring the principles of justice and due process are upheld.
Facts
- The accused averred that the Police failed to produce material objects like the cell phone and call details.
- Further investigation cannot be ordered post cognizance stage except by the investigating agency.
- Various witnesses were examined who provided different accounts of the incident.
- An attempt by the wife of the deceased to summon witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rebuffed by the Trial Court and the High Court.
- The High Court ordered further investigation in the matter, which was challenged in the present appeal.
- Eyewitnesses and occurrence witnesses were mentioned in the application for further investigation.
- The application for further investigation was dismissed by the Trial Judge.
- The accused strongly opposed the application for further investigation.
- The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 29.11.2019
- The High Court allowed the application to examine additional witnesses based on the possibility of prejudice to the accused if relief of further investigation is denied
- The State opposed the application, stating proper investigation and charge-sheet filing had been done, and the application seemed to be an attempt to prolong the proceedings
- The trial court initially dismissed the petition for further investigation on 23 July 2020
- The trial court found inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of power for further investigation
- The trial court eventually decided that further investigation is necessary and directed the investigation agency to examine all witnesses referred by the petitioner, file an additional charge sheet within three months, and set aside its previous order
- It was noted that P.W.1 turned hostile during the proceedings
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Inclusion of Allowances in Deceased’s Income Calculation
Arguments
- The appellant’s senior counsel argues that the current application by the respondent is an attempt to reopen finalized proceedings under Section 311.
- It is contended that after charges were framed, the respondent, who is not the complainant, should not be able to file for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
- The counsel states that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 173(8) after charges were framed.
- No valid grounds are seen for further investigation according to the appellant’s counsel.
- The High Court is criticized for interfering with the trial court’s order using its revisional jurisdiction.
- Several judgments of this Court are cited to support these contentions.
- The learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned senior counsel for the respondent strongly defended the impugned order.
- They emphasized that the interest of justice is paramount and takes precedence over avoiding any delays in the proceedings.
- They pointed out that the investigating agency has conducted further investigation as per the impugned order and issued an additional charge-sheet on 02.12.2021, presenting new facts and material.
- They argued that providing the new material to the accused allows them ample opportunity to prepare and present their defense.
- The learned senior counsel cited relevant precedents to support their argument.
- Upon thorough consideration of the submissions and records, the Court evaluated the arguments presented by both parties.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Delimitation Orders: Upholding Constitutional Values
Analysis
- State vehemently opposed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. when filed in October 2019.
- The first round of Section 311 applications were dismissed in December 2019.
- The High Court ordered further investigation despite rejection by the Trial Judge.
- The necessity for further investigation was emphasized due to alleged witness threats.
- The importance of timely justice in maintaining the rule of law was highlighted.
- The delay in trial proceedings was criticized, attributing to stakeholders.
- Issues regarding witness testimonies and lack of mention of further investigation in previous depositions were raised.
- The State changed its stance on further investigation during court proceedings.
- The unwarranted nature of the direction for further investigation was stressed based on case timeline and existing evidence.
- The need for courts to prevent unnecessary delays in legal proceedings was emphasized.
- The role of legal profession in maintaining the integrity of legal processes was underscored.
- Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows for further investigation in respect of an offence even after a report has been forwarded to the Magistrate.
- If the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains additional evidence, oral or documentary, after the initial report has been submitted, they are required to forward a further report to the Magistrate.
- The further report should contain details of the new evidence in the prescribed format.
- The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 apply to these further reports as they do to the initial report.
- This provision settles any controversy regarding the continuation of investigation post the submission of the initial report.
- The power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation is significant and should be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases, and to achieve justice.
- The need for further investigation must be evaluated based on the singular facts and circumstances of the case to unravel the truth and ensure justice.
- Fresh materials that implicate new persons or absolve previously accused individuals may warrant further investigation to maintain the integrity of the investigation.
- It is essential for there to be a reasonable basis for requesting further investigation to ensure the ends of justice.
- Further investigation should not be a fishing expedition but should be based on new and relevant information that can impact the case.
- The discretion to order further investigation lies with the Magistrate, and it should be exercised judiciously for the pursuit of justice.
- The court emphasized the importance of fair, proper, and unquestionable investigation by both the investigating agency and the court supervising the process.
- Many averments in the affidavits seem to have been written without the knowledge or consent of the deponents.
- Such misadventures contribute to the backlog of cases and delays in delivering justice.
- The petition was dismissed due to lack of merit and need for further investigation.
- Frivolous and vexatious proceedings should be discouraged through imposing exemplary costs on the parties.
Also Read: Quashing of Complaint Case No. 85479 of 2022 in the Case of Industrial Dispute Violation
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The trial Court is directed to frame charges afresh upon receipt of the additional chargesheet.
- The trial Court is instructed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case expeditiously.
- The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge for further investigation stands dismissed.
- The additional chargesheet dated 02.12.2021 will not be taken on record.
- The judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in Criminal RC (MD) No 533 of 2020 has been set aside.
Case Title: K. VADIVEL Vs. K. SHANTHI (2024 INSC 746)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-004058-004058 – 2024
