Supreme Court clarifies Magistrate’s power to order further investigation after discharging the accused in Criminal Cases: Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State (2019) INSC 341 (16 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 16 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 341
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M. R. Shah, J.
Can a Magistrate order further investigation after discharging an accused? This question was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of India in a case concerning offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court clarified the extent of a Magistrate’s powers regarding further investigation, particularly after an accused has been discharged. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M. R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On September 28, 2007, an FIR (First Information Report) was lodged against Bikash Ranjan Rout (the appellant) at the Janakpuri Police Station in Delhi. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the appellant for the same offences.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi, upon considering the charge sheet, discharged the appellant on February 5, 2013. However, in the same order, the Magistrate also directed the Additional Commissioner of Police (West), Delhi, to assess the quality of the investigation and ordered further investigation to reach a logical conclusion. The Magistrate instructed that a report on the further investigation be filed by April 11, 2012 (sic).

Aggrieved by the order for further investigation, the appellant challenged it in the High Court of Delhi. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate’s order for further investigation. This led the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi, discharged the accused, Bikash Ranjan Rout, on February 5, 2013. However, in the same order, the Magistrate directed the Additional Commissioner of Police (West), Delhi, to assess the quality of the investigation and ordered further investigation. This order was challenged by the accused in the High Court of Delhi.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate’s order for further investigation. The High Court observed that the investigation was faulty and that no proper investigation was carried out on certain aspects.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the original accused, Bikash Ranjan Rout, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically concerning the powers of a Magistrate to order further investigation. The relevant sections include:

• Section 173(2) of the CrPC: This section deals with the report of the police officer on completion of investigation. It states that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report.
• Section 173(8) of the CrPC: This section allows for further investigation even after a report has been forwarded under Section 173(2). It states that 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.
• Section 156(3) of the CrPC: This section empowers any Magistrate to order an investigation.
• Section 160 of the CrPC: This section deals with the power of a police officer to require attendance of witnesses.
• Section 167(2) of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.
• Section 227 of the CrPC: This section deals with the discharge of the accused if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• Section 228 of the CrPC: This section deals with framing of charge against the accused if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

The interplay of these sections determines the extent of a Magistrate’s authority to direct further investigation, particularly after discharging an accused.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Bikash Ranjan Rout):

• The High Court erred in confirming the Magistrate’s order for further investigation after the accused was discharged.
• Once the Magistrate discharges the accused after considering the charge sheet, the Magistrate becomes functus officio (having performed his office) and has no jurisdiction to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
• The order for further investigation after the discharge is hit by Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
• The High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between the powers of the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage and the post-cognizance stage.
• The powers available to the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage cannot be exercised at the post-cognizance stage.
• The appellant relied on the following cases:
  • Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537
  • Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129
  • 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
  • Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The Magistrate and the High Court rightly observed that no proper investigation was carried out on certain aspects.
• The Magistrate has the power to order further investigation if the initial investigation was not proper.
• The power of the Magistrate to order further investigation is recognized under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
• The Magistrate has a duty to ensure a fair investigation.
• Further investigation can be ordered at various stages, including after cognizance of the offence.
• The respondent relied on the following cases:
  • Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685
  • Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7 SCC 536
  • Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368
  • Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537
  • Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129

Submissions Table

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that a Magistrate becomes functus officio after discharging an accused and therefore cannot order further investigation is a strong point of law. This argument challenges the conventional understanding of the Magistrate’s powers post-discharge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether, once the learned Magistrate passes an order of discharge of the accused, it is permissible for the Magistrate to order further investigation and direct the investigating officer to submit the report?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537, Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate when a police report is submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. It outlines the options available to the Magistrate, including accepting the report, disagreeing with it, or directing further investigation.
• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (2013) 5 SCC 762, Supreme Court of India: This case clarifies that a Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” but can order “further investigation” after a police report is filed.
• Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 359, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterates the options available to a Magistrate when a police report is placed before him, including directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129, Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation.
• Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685, Supreme Court of India: This case states that a Magistrate can take cognizance based on the material placed on record by the investigating agency and can also direct further investigation.
• Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7 SCC 536, Supreme Court of India: This case states that when a Magistrate passes 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.
• Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, Supreme Court of India: This case states that even after the charge sheet is filed, 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.

The Court also considered the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 173(2) of the CrPC: Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Section 173(8) of the CrPC: Further investigation.
• Section 156(3) of the CrPC: Magistrate’s power to order investigation.
• Section 227 of the CrPC: Discharge of the accused.
• Section 228 of the CrPC: Framing of charge.
• Section 167(2) of the CrPC: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot suo moto order further investigation after discharging an accused under Section 227 of the CrPC. The Court clarified that the power to order further investigation is primarily at the pre-cognizance stage.

The Court observed that while a Magistrate can direct further investigation before taking cognizance, this power cannot be exercised once the accused is discharged. The Court emphasized the distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages.

The Court noted that after discharging an accused, the Magistrate becomes functus officio for the purpose of ordering further investigation. The only remedies available are:

• A revision application against the discharge order.
• Waiting until the stage of Section 319 of the CrPC, which deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.

However, the Court clarified that the investigating agency can still apply for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, even after the discharge of the accused.

Treatment of Submissions Table

View of Authorities Table

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The distinction between the pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages in a criminal trial.
• The principle that once a Magistrate discharges an accused, the Magistrate’s role is limited, and the power to suo moto order further investigation ceases.
• The need to maintain a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the investigating agency.
• The importance of adhering to the procedural framework laid down in the CrPC.
• The recognition that the investigating agency has the power to apply for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

The Court emphasized that while the ultimate goal is to ensure that the real culprit is punished, this must be achieved within the bounds of the law.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation is limited by the procedural framework of the CrPC, particularly after discharging an accused.

The Court’s decision was that the Magistrate’s order for further investigation after discharging the accused was not permissible.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The Magistrate’s power to order further investigation is primarily at the pre-cognizance stage.
• Once an accused is discharged under Section 227 of the CrPC, the Magistrate cannot suo moto order further investigation.
• The Magistrate becomes functus officio for the purpose of ordering further investigation after discharging the accused.
• The investigating agency can still apply for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…once the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report and the materials placed along with the report, discharges the accused, we are afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto order the further investigation by the investigating agency.”

“Once the order of discharge is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto direct the investigating officer for further investigation and submit the report.”

“However, the aforesaid shall be at the instance of the investigating officer/police officer-in-charge and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

The decision has implications for future cases by clarifying the limits of a Magistrate’s power to order further investigation after discharging an accused. It reinforces the principle that the judiciary must adhere to the procedural framework laid down in the CrPC.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforces the existing legal framework.

Key Takeaways

• A Magistrate cannot suo moto order further investigation after discharging an accused.
• The power to order further investigation is primarily at the pre-cognizance stage.
• The investigating agency can still apply for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
• The judgment reinforces the procedural framework of the CrPC and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the investigating agency.
• The judgment clarifies the limits of the Magistrate’s power after discharging the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, which had upheld the Magistrate’s order for further investigation. The Court also quashed the order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation.