Supreme Court Upholds Further Investigation in Misappropriation Case: Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct a Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and whether such an order can be passed without hearing the affected party.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Judgment Date: 12 October 2022

Can a High Court direct a Magistrate to order further investigation into a case, especially when the Magistrate has not deemed it necessary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning alleged misappropriation of food stocks. This judgment clarifies the extent of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and the importance of fair investigation.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari authored the opinion.

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 492

Judges: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the powers of the High Court to order further investigation in a criminal case. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court could direct a Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and whether such an order could be passed without hearing the affected party. This case highlights the balance between ensuring a fair investigation and protecting individual rights.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed at Barh Police Station in 2012, alleging misappropriation of stocks from the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (the Corporation). The FIR named only respondent No. 3, a Class IV employee, as the accused, alleging that he had misappropriated stocks worth Rs. 16,99,648/- during 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The respondent No. 3 contended that he was merely a Class IV employee and that the actual misappropriation was orchestrated by the appellant, who was the District Manager of the Corporation. The audit report, which was part of the FIR, was cited to support this claim. The informant, a Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager, did not implicate the appellant in the FIR.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna, while hearing a petition by respondent No. 3, expressed surprise that the appellant, who held a higher position and was ultimately responsible for the illegalities, was given a clean chit. The High Court noted that respondent No. 3, a Class IV employee, was made an accused as a scapegoat.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Barh, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 then filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, seeking to quash the order of cognizance.

The High Court, while not interfering with the cognizance against respondent No. 3, directed the Magistrate to order the police to further investigate the role of the appellant, the then District Manager, under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The High Court expressed its surprise that the appellant was not named in the FIR despite being the person ultimately responsible for the alleged irregularities. The High Court also granted liberty to the respondent No. 3 to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge, which, as per the directions of the High Court, were to be decided by the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the material emerging in further investigation against the appellant.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the CrPC, to prevent abuse of process, or to secure the ends of justice.

  “482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

• Section 173(8) of the CrPC: This provision allows for further investigation even after a police report has been forwarded to the Magistrate.

  “(8) 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).”

• Section 156 of the CrPC: This section deals with the power of a police officer to investigate cognizable cases and the power of a Magistrate to order such investigation.

  “156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. – (1) 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.
  (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
  (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”

• Section 190 of the CrPC: This section outlines the powers of Magistrates to take cognizance of offenses.

  “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. – (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.”

These provisions are crucial for understanding the powers of the police, the Magistrate, and the High Court in the context of criminal investigations. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these sections clarifies the extent of the High Court’s inherent powers in directing further investigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s direction to the Magistrate to order further investigation was an overreach of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• The appellant contended that the power to investigate lies with the investigating agency and that the Magistrate cannot be mandated to direct the police to investigate a specific person.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by not providing him an opportunity to be heard before issuing the directions for further investigation against him.
• The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [(2014) 3 SCC 306], and other decisions to argue that the formation of an opinion on whether a person should be tried is the prerogative of the police, and the Magistrate’s power is limited to ordering further investigation or taking cognizance.
• The appellant also cited Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 30], to argue that a superior court cannot direct a subordinate court to pass a specific order.
• The appellant relied upon Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296], to submit that the High Court cannot direct the investigating agency to investigate a person who was not sent up for trial.
• The appellant relied upon Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 542], to submit that no judicial order could be passed by any Court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who was likely to be affected by such order.
• The appellant contended that the High Court should have considered that he was exonerated in departmental proceedings.
• The appellant argued that the High Court could not have directed for further investigation or reinvestigation in this the matter in view of the dictum of this Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 762], wherein it was held that fresh/ de novo investigation ought to be directed sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, like where the investigation already conducted is tainted by malafides.
• The appellant submitted that the Magistrate himself, while taking cognizance, could have proceeded against the present appellant, if he had been satisfied that the materials on record implicated the appellant to any extent but, when the Magistrate opted not to proceed against the appellant, the High Court could not have issued directions to further reinvestigate the matter qua the appellant.

Respondent No. 3’s Submissions:

• Respondent No. 3 supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the appellant, being a high-ranking officer, had influenced the internal inquiry to get a clean chit.
• Respondent No. 3 underscored the observations of this Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya [(2019) 17 SCC 1] that the ultimate aim of investigation and inquiry is to ensure that those who have actually committed the crime are booked and those who have not, are not arraigned to face trial.
• Respondent No. 3 contended that the High Court rightly exercised its inherent powers to ensure proper investigation, given the nature of the offense and its impact on society.
• Respondent No. 3 relied on State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 182], to argue that the High Court has the power to order further investigation or reinvestigation under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• Respondent No. 3 argued that the High Court can direct further investigation through the Magistrate.
• Respondent No. 3 relied on Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2020) 16 SCC 777], to submit that a constitutional Court can direct de novo investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• Respondent No. 3 argued that no notice is required to be issued to the accused at the stage of investigation, relying on W.N. Chadha [1993 Supp (4) SCC 260].
• Respondent No. 3 submitted that if upon receiving the final report, the learned Magistrate could have ordered further investigation without prior notice to the accused, so could the High Court have, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
• Respondent No. 3 submitted that the investigation had commenced and was transferred to the Economic Offences Unit, where the allegations against the appellant have been found to be prima facie correct.

Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar)’s Submissions:

• The State of Bihar refuted the appellant’s claims, stating that there was another case against the appellant for misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 7.69 crores, where prosecution sanction had been obtained.
• The State highlighted that the appellant was found to have given charge of the godowns without permission and had failed to take action against irregularities.
• The State submitted that witnesses had deposed that the appellant was responsible and did not discharge his duties properly.
• The State submitted that in the present case also there is material against him, however, prosecution sanction has not been obtained as the petitioner has been granted interim protection.

Submissions [TABLE]

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, was justified in issuing directions to the Magistrate to order further investigation, though the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet had been filed and who had taken cognizance, did not adopt any such process.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in passing the order impugned without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions in reaching its decision. These are categorized below by the legal point they address:

1. On the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC:

• State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 182] – Supreme Court of India. This case affirmed the High Court’s power to order further investigation under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
• Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that it should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
• Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 542] – Supreme Court of India. This case highlighted that the High Court’s inherent powers are not unlimited and must be exercised carefully.
• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 762] – Supreme Court of India. This case differentiated between “further investigation” and “reinvestigation,” noting that the power to order reinvestigation lies with higher courts in exceptional cases.

2. On the powers of the Magistrate and the police in investigation:

• Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [(2014) 3 SCC 306] – Supreme Court of India. This Constitution Bench decision discussed the powers of the police and the Magistrate in the investigation process.
• Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [(1967) 3 SCR 668] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the scheme of the CrPC regarding the formation of an opinion as to whether a person is to be put on trial.
• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2019) 17 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation and the aim of investigation.

3. On the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard:

• Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. [(2012) 10 SCC 517] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the right of an accused to be heard in a criminal revision.
• Union of India and Anr. v. W.N. Chadha [1993 Supp (4) SCC 260] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the exclusion of the principle of audi alteram partem in relation to an accused at the stage of investigation.

4. On the limitations of superior courts:

• Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 30] – Supreme Court of India. This case held that a superior court cannot issue directions to a subordinate court to pass a specific order.

5. On the power of the court to direct de novo investigation:

• Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2020) 16 SCC 777] – Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the power of a constitutional court to direct de novo investigation.

Authorities [TABLE]

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation, given the peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the High Court made certain observations that could prejudice the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not issue directions that could lead to investigation from a particular angle.

Regarding the issue of hearing the appellant, the Supreme Court found that the question of opportunity of hearing would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the Court held that no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the High Court for reconsideration after hearing the appellant.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court? [TABLE]

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the authorities to establish the legal principles governing the case. The authorities were used to show:

• The inherent powers of the High Court to order further investigation, as established in State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 182] and Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296].
• The limitations on the High Court’s powers, as discussed in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 542] and Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 30].
• The distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation, as clarified in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 762].
• The powers of the Magistrate and police in investigation, as outlined in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [(2014) 3 SCC 306], Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [(1967) 3 SCR 668], and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2019) 17 SCC 1].
• The principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, as discussed in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. [(2012) 10 SCC 517] and its exclusion at the stage of investigation in Union of India and Anr. v. W.N. Chadha [1993 Supp (4) SCC 260].

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the need for a fair and just investigation, the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the potential for injustice if the appellant’s role was not properly investigated. The Court also considered the High Court’s observations and remarks, which had the potential to prejudice the investigation.

The Court was particularly concerned with the fact that the appellant, who held a higher position and was ultimately responsible for the alleged irregularities, was not named in the FIR. The Court also noted that the High Court had made observations that could prejudice the appellant.

Sentiment Analysis [TABLE]

Fact:Law Ratio [TABLE]

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar clarifies the extent of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in directing further investigation. While the High Court can order further investigation to ensure a fair and just outcome, it must do so without making prejudicial observations or directing the investigation from a specific angle. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the need for thorough investigation with the protection of individual rights.

This case serves as a reminder that the ultimate goal of any investigation is to unearth the truth and bring the actual perpetrators of a crime to justice, while safeguarding against the abuse of process.