Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1475 (RAJ)

Shiv Shanker Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-17

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Counsel for the parties. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 20.3.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur, so far it relates to directions issued to the investigating agency to make further investigation. 2. The Central Bureau, after investigation in FIR No. 33/96, submitted charge-sheet on 20.12.1996 and the Trial Court, on the basis of evidence and material placed before it, took cognizance on 3.4.1997 and posted the case for arguments on charge. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 20.3.2004 impugned in this petition sent back the matter for further investigation and dropped the proceedings against the accused petitioner and two others on the ground of inconsistencies in conclusion in the investigation carried out in FIR Nos. 34/96, 33/ 96 which resulted in submission of final report in FIR No. 34/96 and charge-sheet in FIR No. 33 /96. 3. While passing the impugned order, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the Court can order for further investigation even after the cognizance is taken. In taking this view, the learned Judge relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Aravindakshan and Another v. State of Kerala and Another, 1985 Crl.L.J. 1389 , and that of a decision of the Apex Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1791 . 4. I have gone through the case laws relied upon by the learned trial Judge. In Ram Lal Narang (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that despite a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence upon a police report, the right of the police to further investigate even under the Old Code of 1898 was not exhaustive and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light subject to rider of informing the Court and seeking formal permission by the police to make further investigation. Another case viz. Aravindakshan and Another (supra), is based on the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. 5. In Ram Lal Narang's case (supra), the controversy set at rest relates to the power of the police whether it can make further investigation even after it has completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet in the Court. Another case viz. Aravindakshan and Another (supra), is based on the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. 5. In Ram Lal Narang's case (supra), the controversy set at rest relates to the power of the police whether it can make further investigation even after it has completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet in the Court. The law propounded was that despite a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence after submission of charge-sheet, if new facts come to the light, the police can make further investigation after seeking formal permission of the Court. The controversy now set at rest by introducing Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the New Code. 6. Here, in the instant case the question that needs adjudication is whether a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of police report can suo motu order for further investigation in the case? 7. The above controversy stands finally decided by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. The State Being the Delhi Administration, I(1997) CCR 128 (SC)= AIR 1997 Supreme Court 639 . In this case the learned Magistrate ordered for further investigation after making cognizance of an offence on the basis of police report and after appearance of the appellants and others and the case was otherwise ready for considering the question whether charge should be framed or appellant should be discharged. In these circumstances, Their Lordships formulated the question for consideration in the following manner: "A peep into a little grey area of the criminal law has become necessary in this appeal, as we have been called upon to decide as to whether a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order of his own further investigation in the case." 8. Having formulated the question, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said: "Question posed by us was if for further investigation, the police should ordinarily take formal permission of the Court, can the Court on its own not ask for further investigation, if the same be thought necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case?" 9. Having formulated the question, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said: "Question posed by us was if for further investigation, the police should ordinarily take formal permission of the Court, can the Court on its own not ask for further investigation, if the same be thought necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case?" 9. After considering the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and after noticing various decisions of the Apex Court and that of High Courts, Their Lordships held as under: "The aforesaid being the legal position as discernible from the various decisions of this Court and some of the High Courts, we would agree, as presently advised, with Mr. Vasdev that within the grey area to which we have referred the Magistrate of his own cannot order for further investigation." 10. Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Randhir Singh's case (supra). In the case at hand, the learned trial Judge, under the impugned order, at his own has directed the police to make further investigation after it has taken cognizance o: the offence and summoned the accused petitioner, which in my considered view cannot be permitted in the light of the law laid down in Randhir Singh's case (supra). 11. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of materials already available on record. It is made clear that even if the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police on its own, after seeking formal approval of the Court, would be permissible, and that further investigation may even end in submission of either fresh charge-sheet.Petition allowed. *******