Source: https://taxkeeda.com/bikash-ranjan-rout-vs-the-state-home-department-on-16-april-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:50:02+00:00

Document:
2 Magistrate ordered further investigation, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
3 and the same be done responsibly and the report be filed on 11.04.2012 (sic).
4 directing further investigation by observing that the investigation was a faulty investigation and/or no proper investigation was carried out on certain aspects and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in inquiring further investigation to reach to a logical conclusion. Consequently, the High Court has dismissed the said petition. Hence, the appellant­original accused is before this Court.
4. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mandal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant­original accused, has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in confirming the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation.
4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­ original accused has vehemently submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that after the accused was discharged by the learned Magistrate, thereafter he has no jurisdiction to pass any order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
5 4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­original accused that once the accused is discharged by the learned Magistrate after considering the charge­sheet and the material on record, thereafter the learned Magistrate becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to order further investigation even under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
6 the powers which may be available to the Magistrate at pre­ cognizance stage cannot be exercised at post­cognizance stage. 4.5 In support of his above submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­original accused has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537 as well as in the case of Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­ original accused has further relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (2013) 5 SCC 762; Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 731; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361.
7 impermissible. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering further investigation. 5. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent­State, has vehemently opposed the present appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­State that as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate and even the High Court that on certain aspects there was no investigation carried out at all and no evidence was collected, which will go to the root of the matter and therefore having not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation was carried out and the charge­sheet was submitted and thereafter when the learned Magistrate ordered further investigation, the same is rightly not interfered with by the High Court.
9 stage of the trial, that is even after taking cognizance of the offence.
5.3 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7 SCC 536, it is further submitted that when the learned Magistrate passed an order of further investigation for the ends of justice, the same is not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
5.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­ State has also heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368. It is submitted that even after the charge­sheet is filed, still the Magistrate is free to direct the accused to appear and try the offence, even at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC.
5.5 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions of this Court, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
11 thereafter is it permissible for the Magistrate to order further investigation and direct the investigating officer to submit the report?
6.1 While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisions of this Court on the procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate when the investigating officer submits the report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and what are the powers of the learned Magistrate and/or what are the options available to the learned Magistrate at a time when the investigating officer after concluding the investigation submits the report/challan/charge­sheet before the learned Magistrate, are required to be referred to and considered.
the first information report lodged by him. There can.
“40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as aforeindicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code: 40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report. 40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further investigation” after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code.
40.3. The view expressed in Sub­para 40.2 above is in conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant Singh case [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] by a three­Judge Bench and thus in conformity with the doctrine of precedent.
16 CrPC, namely Sections 167(2), 173, 227 and 228 of the CrPC, what is emerging is that after the investigation is concluded and the report is forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. If the Magistrate disagrees with the report and drops the proceedings, the informant is required to be given an opportunity to submit the protest application and thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the informant, the Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the proceedings against the accused or not. If the learned Magistrate accepts the objections, in that case, he may issue process and/or even frame the charges against the accused. As observed hereinabove, having not satisfied with the investigation on considering the report forwarded by the police under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, the Magistrate may, at that stage, direct further investigation and require the police to make a further report. However, it is required to be noted that all the aforesaid is required to be done at the pre­cognizance stage.
19 investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC or direct the re­ investigation into a case at the post­cognizance stage, more particularly when, in exercise of powers under Section 227 of the CrPC, the Magistrate discharges the accused. However, Section 173(8) of the CrPC confers power upon the officer­in­charge of the police station to further investigate and submit evidence, oral or documentary, after forwarding the report under sub­section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is always open for the investigating officer to apply for further investigation, even after forwarding the report under sub­section (2) of Section 173 and even after the discharge of the accused. However, the aforesaid shall be at the instance of the investigating officer/police officer­ in­charge and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused.
20 beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Therefore, that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering further investigation after he discharges the accused, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming such an order passed by the learned Magistrate also deserves to be quashed and set aside. At the same time, it will always be open for the investigating officer to file an appropriate application for further investigation and undertake further investigation and submit a further report in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 as well as that part of the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the investigating officer for further investigation and submit the report, is hereby quashed and set aside.
21 punish the real culprit, it will be open for the investigating officer to submit a proper application before the learned Magistrate for further investigation and conduct fresh investigation and submit the further report in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and thereafter the learned Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. 9. The present appeal is allowed with the above observations and the liberty reserved in favour of the investigating officer, as above.
……………………………………..J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] NEW DELHI; ……………………………………..J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.