LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a co-accused has the right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Judgment Date: 2 March 2020
Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 198
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a co-accused, already facing trial, demand to be heard when a victim seeks further investigation against another individual? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the rights of co-accused in cases of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The court held that a co-accused does not have the right to be heard at this stage. This ruling clarifies the scope of Section 173(8) CrPC and the rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
On 26 January 2001, an earthquake caused the collapse of Shikhar Apartment in Ahmedabad, resulting in 98 deaths. The victim, a private respondent in this case, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the appellant, Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah, and others at the Satellite Police Station. The charges included offences under Sections 304, 418, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and violations of the Gujarat Ownership of Flats Act and building bye-laws.
The police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and some others on 2 May 2001. However, three individuals, Yagnesh Vyas, Sanjay Shah, and Ronak Shah, were not initially included in the charge-sheet. After multiple legal proceedings, Yagnesh Vyas and Sanjay Shah were also charge-sheeted. The matter reached the Supreme Court as Criminal Appeal No. 1426 of 2017. During the hearing of this appeal, the court noted that the investigation was progressing, and the charge-sheet against Yagnesh Vyas and Sanjay Shah had been filed. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 16 July 2018, allowed the victim to file a protest petition in the trial court if they had any objections regarding the dropping of charges against any accused. The court also allowed the victim to initiate proceedings against Shri M.N. Bhaumik for not prosecuting him.
Subsequently, the victim filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 173(8) and 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking further investigation against Shri Bhaumik. However, on 29 August 2018, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed this application, stating that after the charge-sheet had been filed, the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
The victim then filed a Special Criminal Application No. 8704 of 2018 before the High Court of Gujarat, challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In this application, the appellant, who was already charge-sheeted, sought to be impleaded as a respondent. The High Court dismissed this application, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 January 2001 | Earthquake causes collapse of Shikhar Apartment, resulting in 98 deaths. |
| 2 May 2001 | Police file charge-sheet against the appellant and others. |
| 16 July 2018 | Supreme Court disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 1426 of 2017, allowing the victim to file a protest petition and initiate proceedings against Shri M.N. Bhaumik. |
| 29 August 2018 | Chief Judicial Magistrate dismisses the victim’s application for further investigation against Shri Bhaumik. |
| 24 December 2018 | High Court of Gujarat dismisses the appellant’s application to be impleaded in the Special Criminal Application. |
| 2 March 2020 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The victim initially filed an FIR against the appellant and others. After the charge-sheet was filed, the victim sought further investigation against Shri Bhaumik, who was not charge-sheeted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed this application, stating lack of jurisdiction under Section 173(8) CrPC after the charge sheet was filed. The High Court of Gujarat upheld this decision, rejecting the appellant’s plea to be included as a party in the proceedings.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with further investigation in a case.
Section 173(8) of the CrPC states: “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 provision allows for further investigation even after a charge-sheet has been filed, if new evidence comes to light. The court also considered the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, specifically Rule 51, which pertains to parties in appeals or applications.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The High Court erred in refusing to implead the appellant as a party in the victim’s petition seeking further investigation.
- The High Court did not consider that a person who is not a complainant cannot seek direction for further investigation, as held in Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka (2018) 14 SCC 298.
- The complainant does not have the right to file an application under Section 173(8) CrPC once the charge-sheet is framed, as held in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177.
- The appellant, being a co-accused, is a necessary and proper party to ensure effective adjudication, especially since allegations were made against the investigating agency.
- Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, mandates that all parties to the original proceedings should be made parties to the appeal or application.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The appellant has no locus standi in an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused, Shri Bhaumik, as the appellant is already charge-sheeted and facing trial.
- The appellant is not an affected party, even if the application for further investigation is allowed.
- Even the proposed accused, Shri Bhaumik, has no locus at this stage for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, as per Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65, and Union of India v. W. N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in their attempt to use Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules to claim a right to be heard, despite not being directly affected by the further investigation sought by the victim.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be Heard in Further Investigation |
✓ The High Court erred in not impleading the appellant. ✓ The appellant is a necessary party for effective adjudication. ✓ Rule 51 of Gujarat High Court Rules requires all parties to be included. |
✓ The appellant has no locus standi as the application is against another accused. ✓ The appellant is not an affected party. ✓ Even the proposed accused has no locus at this stage. |
| Maintainability of Further Investigation Application |
✓ A non-complainant cannot seek further investigation (Athul Rao). ✓ Further investigation is not allowed after the charge-sheet (Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel). |
✓ The victim has a right to seek further investigation. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a co-accused, against whom a charge-sheet has already been filed and trial is in progress, is required to be heard or has any locus in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused, against whom no charge-sheet has been filed?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a co-accused has a right to be heard in further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC | No | The court held that the appellant, being a co-accused against whom no relief was sought in the further investigation application, has no locus standi. Additionally, the proposed accused in the further investigation also does not have the right to be heard at this stage. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626: The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any direction for further investigation is made.
- Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. (1999) 5 SCC 740: The Supreme Court observed that the court is not obliged to hear the accused before ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65: This case was cited to support the view that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Union of India v. W. N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260: This case was cited to support the view that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
Provisions of Law Relied Upon by the Court:
- Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows for further investigation even after a charge-sheet has been filed.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to establish that the court is not obliged to hear the accused before ordering further investigation. |
| Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. (1999) 5 SCC 740 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to establish that there is no obligation to hear the accused before directing further investigation. |
| Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to establish that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation. |
| Union of India v. W. N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to establish that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation. |
| Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Statute | Interpreted to clarify that it does not mandate hearing a co-accused in further investigation. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The appellant should be impleaded as a party in the victim’s petition seeking further investigation. | Rejected. The court held that the appellant, being a co-accused against whom no relief was sought in the further investigation application, has no locus standi. |
| The complainant does not have the right to file an application under Section 173(8) CrPC once the charge-sheet is framed. | Not directly addressed in the context of the appellant’s locus standi. The court focused on the main issue of whether a co-accused has a right to be heard in further investigation. |
| Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, mandates that all parties to the original proceedings should be made parties to the appeal or application. | Rejected. The court held that Rule 51 does not apply to proceedings arising out of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC. |
The Court held that the appellant had no right to be heard in the proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Court observed that the appellant was not a necessary or proper party in the application for further investigation against another accused.
The following authorities were viewed by the Court:
- Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626: The court followed this case to establish that the court is not obliged to hear the accused before ordering further investigation.
- Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. (1999) 5 SCC 740: The court followed this case to establish that there is no obligation to hear the accused before directing further investigation.
- Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65: The court followed this case to establish that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation.
- Union of India v. W. N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260: The court followed this case to establish that a proposed accused has no say at the stage of further investigation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a co-accused, who is already charge-sheeted and facing trial, does not have a right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation against another accused. The Court emphasized that the proposed accused in the further investigation also does not have the right to be heard at this stage. The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 173(8) CrPC and the precedents set by previous judgments.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legal Precedent | 40% |
| Interpretation of Section 173(8) CrPC | 30% |
| Locus Standi of Co-accused | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and interpretation of Section 173(8) CrPC, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules required his impleadment, stating that the rule does not apply to proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC. The court also emphasized that even the proposed accused in the further investigation has no right to be heard at this stage.
The court stated:
- “Therefore, it is not at all appreciable how the appellant against whom no relief is sought for further investigation has any locus and/or any say in the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.”
- “Therefore, when the proposed accused against whom the further investigation is sought, namely Shri Bhaumik is not required to be heard at this stage, there is no question of hearing the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and the trial against whom is in progress and no relief of further investigation is sought against him.”
- “Proceedings arising out of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC cannot be equated with the appeal or application against the order passed in criminal case as stated in Rule 51.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The two-judge bench unanimously agreed on the decision.
Key Takeaways
- A co-accused, who is already charge-sheeted and facing trial, does not have the right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC against another accused.
- The court is not obligated to hear the accused or co-accused before directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, does not apply to proceedings arising out of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Even the proposed accused in the further investigation does not have the right to be heard at this stage.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s decision was upheld.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a co-accused, against whom a charge-sheet has been filed and trial is in progress, does not have the right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC against another accused. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that the court is not obligated to hear the accused or co-accused before directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the application of the law in the context of a co-accused seeking to be heard.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors. clarifies that a co-accused does not have the right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC against another accused. This ruling reinforces the principle that the focus of further investigation is on gathering additional evidence, and the court is not required to hear every party potentially affected by such investigation. The decision provides clarity on the rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings and ensures that the process of further investigation is not unduly delayed by unnecessary hearings.