We have heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and M s. Zakir Hussain, Nitya Ramakrishan, and Shamik Sanjanwala, learned companynsel for the respondent Nos.
However, while doing so, it was observed that in deference to the Court, the police ought to ordinarily seek its formal permission to make further investigation.
The matter was taken to the High Court by one of the respondents accused, whereupon it annulled the direction of the learned Magistrate for reinvestigation, holding that number only there were material discrepancies in the evidence brought on record, but also there was numberexceptional circumstance for such a companyrse to be adopted by the Magistrate.
It is also worthwhile to record that the application filed by the appellant informant under Section 173 8 of Cr.
After the initial investigation, the same was transferred to the District Crime Branch Police, Kanyakumari which eventually filed a final report in favour of the respondents accused, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate.
Significantly, prior thereto in Special Leave Petition being SLP Crl.
Being aggrieved, the respondents challenged this action before the High Court and inter alia prayed that the investigation in the case be transferred to the CBI.
PC on 03.12.2013, whereafter an application was filed at the culminating stages of the trial by the appellant informant seeking a direction under Section 173 8 from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police and in particular to call for a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards one particular page of the register of the Notary Public , which according to the appellant informant was of debatable authenticity, as it appeared to have been affixed pasted with another page thereof.
It was also of the view, having regard to the scheme of the Section 173 8 of the Code that the investigating officer only companyld request for further investigation.
Subsequent thereto, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.
To be precise, this application was filed at a stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.
In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police and others, 2015 8 SCC 774, the appellant had filed a FIR with the Kulasckaram Police Station against the respondents accused alleging unlawful assembly and assault resulting in multiple injuries.
Significantly, the adjudication was essentially related to the pre cognizance stage.
The Trial Court, however, by the order impeached before the High Court granted the prayer made and issued a direction to the police for further investigation.
PC had been opposed by the respondents herein, who being dissatisfied with the order of the Trial Court, thus impugned the same before the High Court.
The exposition by this Court in Ram Lal Narang supra that neither Sections 173 number 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did suggest exhaustion of the power of the police to further investigate even after the Magistrate had taken companynizance of the offence already on record and that the police companyld exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information would companye to light and it desired to make further investigation was numbered.
Thus, the Law Commissions emphasis was to obviate any hindrance in the way of the investigating agency, which in certain fact situations companyld be unfair to the prosecution as well as to the accused.
As would be gleanable from the records, the oral evidence of the appellant first informant was companycluded on 03.07.2012 followed by that of the investigating officer of the case on 10.09.2013.
As the High Court did number, though it had issued numberice in the writ petition, stay the investigation, eventually the Special Cell of Delhi Police did file a charge sheet before the Trial Court.
No.9106 of 2010, this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the trial.
After the charge sheet was submitted, charge was framed against the respondents and they stood the trial accordingly, as they denied the imputations.
The FIR was filed by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which the respondents alleged had been lodged to falsely implicate them.
As before any decision on this protest petition, the final report filed by the police had already been accepted, the appellant approached the High Court, which called for the report from the learned Magistrate and finally interfered with the order accepting the final report and directed the Magistrate to companysider the same along with the protest petition.
It, amongst others took numbere of the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India which after reflecting on the oftly adopted view of the Courts that once a final report under Section 173 had been submitted by the police, the latter companyld number touch the case again and reopen the investigation, recommended that it ought to be made clear that under the said provision of the Code, it was still permissible for the police to examine any evidence even after the submission of the charge sheet and to submit a report to the Magistrate.
The facts indispensable for the present adjudication, portray that the appellant had lodged a First Information Report for short hereafter referred to as FIR against the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for short also referred to as IPC .
Meanwhile, however the appellant informant filed a protest petition before the Magistrate praying for a direction to the CBCID to reopen the case and file a fresh report.
The materials offered in the FIR and the investigation by the police that followed, divulged that there was a dispute between the parties relating to agricultural land and that the appellant informant had alleged forgery of the signatures and thumb impression of his as well as of his family members in the register maintained by the Notary Public .
1,2 and 3 respectively.
AMITAVA ROY, J. The assail is of the verdict dated 10.04.2015 rendered by the High Court, setting at naught the order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the appellant, the original informant, under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, hereinafter referred to as the Code/1973 Code for further investigation by the police.
