Supreme Court quashes reinvestigation order by Secretary (Home) in murder case: Bohatie Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) INSC 396 (28 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 396

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a state government official order a reinvestigation into a criminal case after the chargesheet has been filed and a court has taken cognizance? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh ordered a reinvestigation by the CBCID (Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department) after the local police had already filed a chargesheet. The court ultimately quashed the Secretary’s order, emphasizing the importance of due process and the limits of administrative authority in criminal investigations. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Satyaveer alias Kallu. Initially, an FIR was filed against Smt. Anju and two unknown persons based on a complaint by Sanjeev, the son-in-law of the appellant, Bohatie Devi. The local police investigated and filed a chargesheet against two individuals on March 1, 2015, which the Magistrate took cognizance of on March 31, 2015. Dissatisfied with the initial investigation, Bohatie Devi filed an application, leading to a supplementary chargesheet filed by the District Crime Branch on December 2, 2016, against Ashwani Kumar and Smt. Anju. The Magistrate took cognizance of this supplementary chargesheet on December 21, 2016.

Ashwani Kumar then filed a petition in the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and the supplementary chargesheet, which was dismissed on July 5, 2017. Ashwani Kumar then approached the Supreme Court, which also dismissed his petition on August 24, 2018, and vacated an interim protection order on September 15, 2017. Following this, a non-bailable warrant was issued against Ashwani Kumar on September 8, 2018. Subsequently, on January 23, 2019, Ashwani Kumar’s mother applied to the Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, requesting a transfer of the investigation to the CBCID. This application was based on the claim that the witnesses who implicated Ashwani Kumar were in jail at the time of the alleged crime and their statements were therefore unreliable. The Secretary (Home) ordered a further investigation by CBCID on February 13, 2019. This order was challenged by Bohatie Devi in the High Court, which dismissed her petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial investigation by the local police led to a chargesheet against two individuals, which the Magistrate took cognizance of. Subsequently, on the complaint of the appellant, the investigation was transferred to the District Crime Branch, which filed a supplementary chargesheet against Ashwani Kumar and Smt. Anju. Ashwani Kumar then filed a quashing petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. His subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. After a non-bailable warrant was issued against him, his mother applied to the Secretary (Home) for a transfer of the investigation to CBCID. The Secretary (Home) ordered a further investigation by CBCID, which was challenged by the appellant in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which deals with further investigation in a criminal case. This section 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).”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 173(3) of the Cr.PC, which specifies the procedure for submitting a report to the Magistrate:

“Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.”

Section 158 of the Cr.PC deals with the report under Section 157 of the Cr.PC, which is submitted to the Magistrate through a superior officer of police.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Bohatie Devi):

• The order by the Secretary (Home) to transfer the investigation to CBCID is illegal and violates the Cr.PC.

• After the chargesheet was filed against respondent Nos. 8 and 11, the Secretary (Home) could not transfer the investigation at the request of the mother of one of the accused.

• The grounds for transferring the investigation were defenses that should be considered during the trial, not for reinvestigation.

• The transfer of investigation to CBCID is a reinvestigation, not a further investigation. Reinvestigation requires prior approval from the Magistrate, which was not obtained.

• The High Court erred in stating that the further investigation was ordered with the concurrence of the Magistrate, as only an intimation was sent.

• The accused had already failed in their quashing petition up to the Supreme Court; therefore, they should not be allowed to seek further investigation.

State’s Arguments (Uttar Pradesh):

• The Secretary (Home) ordered the further investigation to ensure complete justice to all parties, including the accused.

• The order was administrative, and the investigating officer (IO) later informed the Magistrate, fulfilling the legal requirement.

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused – Ashwani Kumar and Smt. Anju):

• Fair investigation is a right of both the accused and the victim.

• Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC allows the IO to further investigate without prior permission from the Magistrate.

• The police should have the power to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary report in the interest of both the prosecution and the defense.

• The District Crime Branch had already conducted a further investigation on the appellant’s complaint.

• Section 173(3) read with Section 158 of the Cr.PC allows investigation by another agency.

• After the CBCID investigation, a report will be submitted to the Magistrate, who will consider all three reports (original chargesheet, supplementary chargesheet, and CBCID report).

The innovativeness of the argument by the accused lies in their attempt to use Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC to justify the Secretary (Home)’s order for further investigation by CBCID, arguing that it is a right of the IO and does not require prior permission from the Magistrate. They further argued that fair investigation is a right of the accused as well, and that the Secretary (Home) has the administrative power to order such investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

✓ Whether the Secretary (Home) of the State of Uttar Pradesh could order a further investigation by the CBCID after a chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet had been filed and cognizance taken by the Magistrate, and whether this was a case of further investigation or reinvestigation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Bohatie Devi and quashed the order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation to CBCID. The Court held that the Secretary (Home) had no authority to order such a transfer, particularly after the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the power to investigate and further investigate lies with the police and not with administrative authorities like the Secretary (Home).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Lack of Authority: The Secretary (Home) does not have the legal authority to order a reinvestigation by another agency after a chargesheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. The power to investigate lies with the police, not administrative officials.

• Distinction between Further Investigation and Reinvestigation: The Court emphasized the difference between further investigation (by the same investigating officer) and reinvestigation (by a different agency). Reinvestigation requires prior approval from the Magistrate, which was not obtained in this case.

• Due Process: The Court stressed that the accused cannot circumvent the legal process by approaching the Secretary (Home) to get a fresh investigation. The proper procedure is to either file a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC or to move an appropriate application for discharge before the Magistrate.

• Circumvention of Legal Process: Allowing the Secretary (Home) to order reinvestigation would allow any accused to get a fresh investigation by another agency, nullifying the earlier chargesheet.

The Court rejected the argument that the Secretary (Home) could order further investigation on the administrative side. The Court stated that the Secretary (Home) does not come into picture at all so far as the investigation is concerned under the scheme of the Cr.PC. The Court also rejected the argument that Section 173(3) read with Section 158 of the Cr.PC allows the Secretary (Home) to order further investigation.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“There cannot be any dispute that even after the chargesheet is filed, it is the right of the investigating officer to further investigate in respect of offence even after a report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.PC forwarded to a Magistrate and as observed and held by this Court the prior approval of the Magistrate is not required.”

“In the present case, the Secretary (Home) has passed an order for further investigation by CBCID and thereafter, the CBCID has sent the intimation to the learned Magistrate. No prior approval/permission as observed by the High Court has been accorded by the learned Magistrate.”

“Under what authority of law, the Secretary (Home) has transferred the investigation to another agency and/or ordered further investigation by another agency is not pointed out and that too at the instance of the accused on the grounds which as such can be said to be the defences of the accused which are required to be considered at the time of trial.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

✓ The Secretary (Home) of a state government does not have the power to order a reinvestigation by another agency after a chargesheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate.

✓ Reinvestigation by another agency requires prior approval from the Magistrate.

✓ The accused cannot circumvent the legal process by approaching the Secretary (Home) to get a fresh investigation.

✓ The proper procedure for the accused is to file a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC or to move an appropriate application for discharge before the Magistrate.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the Secretary (Home) and also quashed the further investigation/reinvestigation by the CBCID. However, the Court observed that all the defenses which may be available to the accused are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the time of trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Secretary (Home) does not have the power to order a reinvestigation by another agency after a chargesheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. This judgment clarifies the limits of administrative authority in criminal investigations and reinforces the importance of due process and judicial oversight in criminal cases. It also clarifies the distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation, emphasizing that reinvestigation requires prior permission from the Magistrate. This judgment changes the previous position of law that was being followed in Uttar Pradesh where the Secretary (Home) was ordering reinvestigation by another agency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bohatie Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reinforces the principle that criminal investigations must be conducted within the framework of the law. The court clarified that administrative authorities like the Secretary (Home) cannot interfere with the judicial process by ordering reinvestigations. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the need for judicial oversight in criminal matters.