LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Magistrate has the power to order further investigation after a charge sheet has been filed in a criminal case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
Judgment Date: 16 October 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 16 October 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1103
Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Surya Kant, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a Magistrate order further investigation in a criminal case after a charge sheet has already been filed? This question has significant implications for the fairness and efficiency of criminal proceedings in India. The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, addressed this critical issue, clarifying the extent of a Magistrate’s powers in such situations. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant, and V. Ramasubramanian, with Justice R.F. Nariman authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 22nd December 2009, by Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel, the Power-of-Attorney holder for Ramanbhai Bhagubhai Patel and Shankarbhai Bhagubhai Patel. The complaint alleged that Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya was blackmailing the Patels regarding a piece of agricultural land near Surat. The FIR stated that the Patels were the land’s absolute owners, having obtained it in 1975. It further claimed that Vinubhai Malaviya, along with others, conspired to grab the land using a fake ‘Satakhat’ (agreement to sell) and Power-of-Attorney, demanding Rs. 2.5 crores to “settle” the matter.
The background of the FIR involves Khushalbhai, the original tenant of the land, followed by his son Bhikhabhai, who then passed away on 23rd December 1984. Bhikhabhai’s wife, Bhikiben, died on 18th December 1999. A public notice was issued on 7th June 2008, by the heirs of Bhikhabhai, accusing the Patels of land-grabbing. This led to the heirs applying to the Collector to cancel revenue entries made in 1976.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1975 | Ramanbhai Patel and Shankarbhai Patel allegedly obtained the agricultural land. |
| 23 December 1984 | Death of Bhikhabhai. |
| 18 December 1999 | Death of Bhikiben. |
| 7 June 2008 | Public notice issued by heirs of Bhikhabhai, accusing the Patels of land grabbing. |
| 12 June 2008 | Heirs of Bhikhabhai applied to the Collector to cancel revenue entries made in 1976. |
| 22 December 2009 | FIR lodged by Nitinbhai Patel against Vinubhai Malaviya and others. |
| 22 April 2010 | Charge-sheet submitted to the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat. |
| 23 April 2010 | Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. |
| 10 June 2011 | Accused No.1 filed application for further investigation and discharge. |
| 14 June 2011 | Accused 2 to 6 filed applications for further investigation and discharge. |
| 26 July 2011 | Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by Vinubhai Malaviya and others to register an FIR. |
| 24 August 2011 | Magistrate dismissed applications for further investigation. |
| 9 September 2011 | Magistrate rejected application to register an FIR. |
| 21 October 2011 | Magistrate rejected the discharge applications. |
| 10 January 2012 | Sessions Court ordered further investigation. |
| 6 March 2012 | Investigation handed over to IO Munshi. |
| 9 March 2012 | IO Munshi submitted first further investigation report. |
| 10 April 2012 | IO Munshi submitted second further investigation report. |
| 13 June 2012 | Original accused withdrew Special Criminal Application filed in the High Court. |
| 23 April 2016 | Additional Sessions Judge rejected application under Section 156(3) of CrPC. |
| 16 October 2019 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Following the submission of a charge-sheet by the police on 22nd April 2010, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat, took cognizance on 23rd April 2010, and issued summons to the accused for offenses under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused then filed applications for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and for discharge, which were dismissed by the Magistrate on 24th August 2011 and 21st October 2011, respectively.
The accused also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application on 26th July 2011, seeking registration of an FIR or an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was rejected on 9th September 2011. Subsequently, the Sessions Court, Surat, in a common order dated 10th January 2012, allowed the revision applications, ordering further investigation. This order was challenged in the High Court, which held that the Magistrate lacked the power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. The High Court also criticized the Investigating Officer (IO) for submitting interim investigation reports to the Additional Sessions Judge instead of the Magistrate. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Additional Sessions Judge then rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on merits, which was further challenged.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of several sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which govern the powers of the police and the judiciary in criminal investigations. The key provisions include:
- Section 156(1) of the CrPC:
“Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.” This section outlines the power of a police officer to investigate cognizable cases without a Magistrate’s order.
- Section 156(3) of the CrPC:
“Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.” This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation.
- Section 173(8) of the CrPC:
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).” This section allows for further investigation even after a police report has been submitted to the Magistrate.
- Section 190 of the CrPC:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence – (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.” This section describes how a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offense.
- Section 200 of the CrPC:
“Examination of complainant. – A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:” This section describes the process of examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.
- Section 202 of the CrPC:
“Postponement of issue of process. – (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:” This section describes the power of the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process.
- Section 204 of the CrPC:
“Issue of process. – (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be – (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such other Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.” This section describes the procedure for issuing summons or warrants.
These provisions are interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and mandates that criminal trials must be fair and just.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- Shri Dushyant Dave, the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants, argued that the High Court was incorrect in holding that a Magistrate has no power to order further investigation after cognizance.
- He contended that a communication from the Commissioner of Revenue, Gujarat, dated 15th March 2011, indicated that a fraud had been perpetrated on his clients by a land-grabbing mafia, necessitating further investigation.
- He criticized the High Court for being influenced by the speed of IO Munshi’s reports and their submission to the Additional Sessions Judge instead of the Magistrate.
- He urged the court to uphold the Sessions Judge’s order for further investigation to ensure the truth of the matter is revealed.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- Shri Basant and Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocates for the Respondents, supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the appellants were attempting to introduce defense evidence without filing a cross-FIR.
- They emphasized that no application was made to quash the proceedings, and a belated application for further investigation was outside the Magistrate’s power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
- They cited recent judgments to support their claim that post-cognizance, a Magistrate cannot order further investigation, especially after summons is issued and the accused appears.
The core of the dispute centered on whether the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC continues after cognizance is taken and the accused appears.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Power of Magistrate to order further investigation |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:
- Whether, after a charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a Magistrate has the power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet is filed? | Yes, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation. | The power to order further investigation is derived from Section 156(3) read with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and this power continues until the trial commences. This is essential for ensuring a fair and just investigation as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Up to what stage of a criminal proceeding can a Magistrate order further investigation? | Until the trial commences, which is after charges are framed. | The Court clarified that the trial begins only after charges are framed, and until that stage, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation to ensure a fair process. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered various authorities while arriving at its decision. These have been categorized by legal point.
On the Power of the Magistrate to Order Further Investigation:
- Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 91: The Court recognized that if a Magistrate does not agree with the police report, he may order further investigation as a supervisory authority.
- State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldhana and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554: The Court held that the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to direct further investigation is independent and can be exercised even after the investigating officer submits a report.
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409: The Court clarified that a Magistrate can order a proper investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which includes the power to order registration of an FIR and further investigation, if the initial investigation is not satisfactory.
- Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614: The Court held that a Magistrate can direct the CBI to further investigate a case under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, especially if there are objections from the complainant.
- Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 347: The Court emphasized that further investigation is warranted if it helps arrive at the truth, and the need to avoid delay should not hinder it.
- Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 536: The Court reiterated that the power of the police to conduct further investigation can be triggered by the court, and such orders are for the ends of justice.
- Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 407: The Court stated that a court can direct further investigation even after a charge-sheet has been filed, as the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth.
- Gulzar Ahmed Azmi v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 731: The Court held that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC can be done even after the final report is filed.
- Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762: The Court clarified that a Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and can exercise this power with the aid of Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
On the Commencement of Trial:
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92: The Court held that a trial commences only after charges are framed, not when cognizance is taken.
- Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 775: The Court specified when trials commence in different types of cases, emphasizing that it is after charges are framed.
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Section 2(c) of the CrPC: Definition of “cognizable case.”
- Section 2(d) of the CrPC: Definition of “complaint.”
- Section 2(g) of the CrPC: Definition of “inquiry.”
- Section 2(h) of the CrPC: Definition of “investigation.”
- Section 156 of the CrPC: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases.
- Section 173 of the CrPC: Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
- Section 190 of the CrPC: Cognizance of offenses by Magistrates.
- Section 200 of the CrPC: Examination of complainant.
- Section 202 of the CrPC: Postponement of issue of process.
- Section 204 of the CrPC: Issue of process.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protection of life and personal liberty.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 91 | Supreme Court of India | Recognized that Magistrate can order further investigation as a supervisory authority. |
| State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldhana and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554 | Supreme Court of India | Held Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation is independent. |
| Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified Magistrate’s power to order proper investigation, including registration of FIR. |
| Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614 | Supreme Court of India | Held Magistrate can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC. |
| Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 347 | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized further investigation is warranted to arrive at the truth. |
| Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 536 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated court can trigger police power for further investigation. |
| Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 407 | Supreme Court of India | Stated court can direct further investigation even after charge-sheet. |
| Gulzar Ahmed Azmi v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 731 | Supreme Court of India | Held further investigation under Section 173(8) can be done after final report. |
| Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8). |
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Held trial commences only after charges are framed. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 775 | Supreme Court of India | Specified when trials commence in different types of cases. |
| Section 2(c) of the CrPC | Statute | Definition of “cognizable case.” |
| Section 2(d) of the CrPC | Statute | Definition of “complaint.” |
| Section 2(g) of the CrPC | Statute | Definition of “inquiry.” |
| Section 2(h) of the CrPC | Statute | Definition of “investigation.” |
| Section 156 of the CrPC | Statute | Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases. |
| Section 173 of the CrPC | Statute | Report of police officer on completion of investigation. |
| Section 190 of the CrPC | Statute | Cognizance of offenses by Magistrates. |
| Section 200 of the CrPC | Statute | Examination of complainant. |
| Section 202 of the CrPC | Statute | Postponement of issue of process. |
| Section 204 of the CrPC | Statute | Issue of process. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Constitution | Protection of life and personal liberty. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ argument that High Court was incorrect in holding that a Magistrate has no power to order further investigation after cognizance. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate does have the power to order further investigation. |
| Appellants’ argument that the Commissioner of Revenue’s communication necessitates further investigation. | Partially Accepted. The Court directed the registration of a separate FIR based on the communication, but not for further investigation in the current FIR. |
| Appellants’ argument that Sessions Judge’s order for further investigation should be upheld. | Rejected. The Court held that the facts alleged in the application for further investigation had no direct bearing on the current FIR. |
| Respondents’ argument that further investigation is defense evidence without cross-FIR. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the facts alleged in the application were in the nature of a cross-FIR. |
| Respondents’ argument that belated application is outside Magistrate’s power under Section 173(8). | Rejected. The Court held that the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation continues until the trial commences. |
| Respondents’ argument that post-cognizance, Magistrate cannot order further investigation. | Rejected. The Court held that the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation continues until the trial commences. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 91, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldhana and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614, Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 347, Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 536, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 407, Gulzar Ahmed Azmi v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 731, and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 to establish that a Magistrate has the power to order further investigation.
- The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 775 to establish that the trial commences only after charges are framed.
- The Court overruled the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 298, and Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi (2019) 5 SCC 542, to the extent that they held a Magistrate’s power to order further investigation ceases upon process being issued. The Court also overruled the judgments in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129.
- The Court distinguished the judgments in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, Union of India and Anr. v. W.N Chadha (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalongappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736, Prabha Mathur and Anr. v. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 469, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65, Dinubhai Bhogabhai Solanki v.State of Gujarat and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 626, and CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi and Anr. (1996) 11 SCC 253 by stating that these judgments either did not consider Section 173(8) of the CrPC or were on different issues.
Final Decision:
The Supreme Court held that:
- A Magistrate has the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, read with Section 156(3) of the CrPC, even after a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken.
- This power continues until the trial commences, which is after charges are framed.
- The Magistrate’s power to order further investigation is not restricted by the issuance of process or the appearance of the accused.
- The Court directed the registration of a separate FIR based on the communication from the Commissioner of Revenue, Gujarat, dated 15th March 2011, but not for further investigation in the current FIR.
- The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the case back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for criminal procedure in India:
- Magistrate’s Power: It clarifies that a Magistrate’s power to order further investigation is not curtailed by the filing of a charge sheet or the taking of cognizance. This ensures that the Magistrate can act as a check on the police investigation and ensure that all aspects of a case are thoroughly investigated.
- Fair Trial: By allowing further investigation until the trial commences, the judgment ensures that all relevant evidence is brought before the court, thereby promoting a fair and just trial, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Truth Seeking: The judgment emphasizes that the primary objective of an investigation is to uncover the truth. The Magistrate’s power to order further investigation is a tool to achieve this objective, ensuring that no relevant information is overlooked.
- Judicial Oversight: The decision reinforces the role of the judiciary in overseeing the investigation process, ensuring that it is conducted fairly and impartially.
- Overruling Precedents: The overruling of previous judgments clarifies the legal position and avoids confusion in the interpretation of Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
Flowchart of Investigation Process