1.0 Investigation of cases by
Police Officer-in-Charge
Any Police
Officer-in-Charge may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within
the limits of 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 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A Magistrate of
Court of Law is empowered under Sec 190 Cr. P.C to order such investigation,
and the word ‘investigation’ has been defined in Sec 2 (h) of The Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for
collection of the evidence conducted by a Police officer or by any person other
than a Magistrate who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. An investigation officer or agency cannot
refrain from conducting investigation on ground that it had no territorial
jurisdiction to investigate offence, when directed by a Magistrate , as
reported in Rasiklal v. State of Gujarat AIR 2010 SC 715.
2.0 Final Report or Challan or
Charge-Sheet
The Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, Sec173 (2) refers
to the Final Report ( Challan) or
Charge- Sheet of Police Officer on completion of Investigation.The Report forwarded
by the Investigation Officer is either a
Final Report ( Challan), where no case has been made out or is a Charge-Sheet where a prima
facie case has been made out. In Sec 173(2) (e), Criminal Procedural Code (Cr.P
C) the only requirement is to furnish information to the Court concerned by the
officer –in-charge of the Police station whether the accused had been arrested
or not. It does not mean that it is necessary to arrest the accused before
submission of charge-sheet in every case. Arrest of the accused is justified or
necessary only if a prima facie case is made out, according to the Supreme
Court in Lalji Yadav V. State of UP, 1998 Cri. L J 2366.
3.0 Alternatives before
Magistrate in a Final Report by Police Officer.
Wherever a Final
Report is forwarded by investigating Police in a case, u/s 173(2) (i) of Cr. P.
C, and is placed before to a Magistrate,
several situations may arise. The Report may conclude that an offence appears
to have been committed by a particular person and persons, and in such a case
Magistrate may either:-
1) accept
Report and take cognizance of offence and issue process,
2) may
disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or to take cognizance on the basis of report
/ material submitted by the Investigation Officer,
3) may
direct further investigation under Sec 156(3) and require Police to make report
as per Sec 173(8)-(AIR 1968 SC 117 ; AIR 1980 SC 1883 / AIR 1955 SC 196).
4) may
treat the Protest Complaint as a complaint , and proceed u/s 200 & 202 of
Cr. P.C.
On completion of
Investigation, Statement of Final Report
u/s 173 (2) (ii) of Cr. P. C, is mandatorily to be given to the
complainant, and the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide
him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report ( R.
Rathinasabapathy V. State , 2004 Cri. L J 2735 (Mad).
4.0 Further Investigation Order
U/s 173(8) Cr. P.C
Magistrate may direct
further investigation under Sec 156(3) and require Police to make report as per
Sec 173(8) where a Final Report is
placed before him under Sec 173 (2) (AIR 1968 SC 117; AIR 1980 SC 1883 / AIR 1955
SC 196) .The right of Police , even after submission of a report u/s
(173(2) Cr. P.C , is not exhausted , and the Police can exercise such right as
often as necessary when fresh information comes into light.
5.0 To proceed against a person
who is not charge-sheeted.
Sec. 319 of Criminal Procedural Code: - The
discretion of the trail court to proceed against the person who is not an
accused at the trail if it appears from the circumstances of the case, that
such person, other than the accused, is involved in the crime is quintessence
of Sec 319 Cr. P.C (Girish Yadav & Others, appellants, V. State of
MP, respondent, AIR 1996 SC 3098). Thus, the trail court in India is
vested with ample powers to proceed against an accused any time during the
trail, if a person is not charge-sheeted by the investigating Police Officer.
6.0 Inherent Powers of High
Court U/s 482 of Cr. P. C
The provision u/s 482
Criminal Procedure Code states that nothing in Cr. P.C shall be deemed to limit
or affect the Inherent Powers of High Court to make such orders as necessary to
effect of any order under Cr. P.C to prevent the abuse of the process of any of
the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus the High Court U/s 482 Cr. P.C is having
ample powers to order for fresh investigation or re-investigation (State
of Punjab V. Central Bureau of Investigation & Others (2011) 11 SCR 281).In
cases like Center for PIL & Others V. Union of India &
Others (CA No. 10660 / 2010), wherein the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants before the Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI
/ Special Investigation Team into-what was termed as ‘ 2G Spectrum Scam’ for
unearthing the role of respondent No. 5 Shri A. Raja , then Union Minister and
others was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The appellants challenged the
order under Article 136, and SC granted SLP and issued direction to CBI to
conduct through investigation.
7.0 Powers of High Courts and
Supreme Court of India.
Though there are
fundamental differences as to “further investigation’ and “re-investigation”,
it may be noted that, in a given situation, a Superior Court, High Court or
Supreme Court, can exercise the constitutional powers under section 226 and 32
respectively of the Constitution of India, and could direct a “State” to get an
offence investigated and / or further investigated by a different agency
Mithabhai Pashbahi Patel V. State of
Gujarat ( 2009 6 SCC 332). In Vineet Narain & Others V.
Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 266, Supreme Court entertained the petition
filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution; and ordered investigation by CBI into
what came to be known as ‘Hawala Case’.
8.0 Investigation by Special
Agencies like CBI
Subject to the fact
and situation of each case the superior courts, at any time; CBI can direct investigation
by the superior agency of the country. In Uma Shankar Sitani v. Commissioner of
Police, Delhi, 1995 Cri. L J 3612 P.
3613 9 SC), the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the matter was to
be investigated by an Independent Agency. Further, in Nirmal Singh Kahlon V. State of
Pujab & Others ( 2009 1 SCC 441 ), the Supreme Court has
sustained the order of High Court , directing investigation by the CBI even
after the filing of charge –sheet by the State Police. In P&H High Court Bar
Association v. State of Punjab, 1994 Cr. L.J 1368, A.I.R 1994 SC 1023 it
was held that the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and to do
complete justice in the matter and further to instill confidence in the public
mind it is necessary to have fresh investigation in the case through a
specialized agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In A. Nallasivam V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995
Cri L J 2754.in a
public interest litigation, the Madras High Court held that the Central Bureau
of Investigation has to find out all those involved in the relevant crimes, and
to submit a report to this court as to what it has done in the matter. The
Supreme Court can also exercise its powers
under Art. 142 to order a CBI enquiry without State government consent
where such consent was required by the Statue.
9. Power to take suo moto cases by Superior Courts.
The facts of State of Punjab V. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Others, SLP Criminal No. 792 / 2008, (2011) 11 SCR
281 was :- On 13.11.2007, a news item was published in the Hindustan Times
headlined ‘Moga Sex Scandal’ and two ladies, namely, respondent no.3 of
Village Varsaal and her relative Manjeet Kaur of Village Badduwal had been
arrested. This news was also published in the Tribune dated 12.11.2007:-- The High Court took suo motu notice of
the news items and issued notices to the
State of Punjab,
Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga and Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ferozpur Range and
directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bhupinder Singh, who
was investigating into the case, to file the status report of the investigation
on the next date of hearing. Matter was taken as a Special Leave, and
finally the Supreme Court concluded that it is not a fit case in which Supreme
Court should exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and grant
leave to appeal. The Special Leave Petition therefore dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment