Facts of the Case
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others, the petitioners, were accused in a criminal case regarding a dispute over an agricultural land situated in Surat and involving severe offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now known as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The investigation was completed with a written petition and the court made a decision about the defendants. During the hearing, the accused, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others, filed an application under Section 173(8) of the CrPC seeking further investigation into the matter. The trial court denied this request by stating that further investigation would only delay the trial when the charges had already been framed. The petitioners then appealed to the High Court, which agreed with the trial court’s decision. Dissatisfied by this, the petitioners approached the supreme court of India.
Background Facts
Nitinbhai Patel, serving as the Power of Attorney Holder, filed an FIR on behalf of Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai as they live in the U.S., on December 22, 2009. The FIR was filed regarding an agricultural land dispute in Surat. The land was taken over legally by Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai from Bhikabhai and his wife Bhikiben. The FIR stated that Bhikabhai and Bhikiben, Vinubhai, and Manubhai conspired against the actual property owners and accused them of being landgrabbers, as the land prices in Surat began to increase. Furthermore, Vinubhai demanded Rs. 2.5 crores to resolve the dispute and also used the Power of Attorney and forged ‘Satakhat’ to steal that land from its rightful owners.[1]
Procedural Background
Following the completion of the investigation, a written petition was submitted and the matter was discussed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) on 22nd April, 2010. Then, on 10th of June, 2011, the petitioners filed an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and another application for discharge, which were both rejected by the Magistrate, further stating that the facts present were enough for the trial to proceed. After which, Vinubhai and the other accused filed another application to register an FIR, for the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, but this application was also rejected by the Magistrate.[2]
Separate criminal revision applications were filed to a Sessions Court, which stated that further investigation would be allowed, but a separate complaint was not required to be registered. By the Sessions Court’s order, an investigative officer was assigned for further investigation, named R.A. Munshi submitted two further investigation reports, in which he mentioned the facts in the 173(8) applications that were filed.[2] In the meantime, the accused withdrew their special criminal application and approached the High Court, challenging the order of rejection of discharge application. The High Court stated that, as a matter of law, the Magistrate does not possess any power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken.[2] It also stated that the investigative officer Munshi holding the further investigations, not through a special public prosecutor and not to the Magistrate, makes it seem like Munshi wanted to favour the accused persons. Thus, the judgement by the learned Sessions Judge was set aside. At last, this special criminal application was filed in the Supreme Court to challenge the dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.[2]
Issues Raised
1. Whether the court can direct further investigation ‘Suo motu’ (on its own motion) or in response to an application filed by any party, regardless of the trial stage.
2. Whether the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation under the Section 173(8) CrPC after the charges have been framed, and if so, up to what stage of criminal proceeding?
3. Whether the powers under Section 156(3) was acting under pre-cognizance or post-cognizance and if this was of any relevance to the case.
4. Whether the powers of the Magistrate under Section 173(8) were derived from Section 156(3).
Contentions
Appellant’s (Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others) Contention
The petitioners contended that the Magistrate should have powers to order further investigation in a cognizable offence and that the High Court had made an error by stating otherwise. The order of further investigation should be allowed to ensure a fair trial and for the disclosure of all facts required for the trial. The petitioners also stated that if the High Courts order was not set aside, if would result in a failure of justice for the victims (Appellants) by the land-grabbing mafias (Respondents).[1]
Respondent’s (State of Gujarat and Anr.) Contention
The respondent’s contended that further investigation should not be allowed after the charges have been framed as it would cause unnecessary delays in the trial process and possible harassment of the accused (Respondents). They also stated that ordering further investigation was beyond the powers of the Magistrate under Section 173(8) CrPC to deal with applications (Appellants) made after cognizance to introduce new facts in the trial.[2]
Rationale
The Supreme Court stated that a proper investigation is important for achieving justice, so limiting the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation post-charge state would eliminate the purpose of an investigation, which is to lay down all the facts for a fair judgement by the court.
The Supreme Court also stated that Section 156(3) and Section 173(8) are for different stages of the investigation. The Section 156(3) starts an investigation by directing the police to file an FIR whereas the Section 173(8) is applied after the completion of investigation by directing for further investigation if necessary. Thus, Section 156(3) of CrPC is pre-cognizance and Section 173(8) of CrPC is post-cognizance. They both are independent and distinct sections and are not derived from each other.
However, Section 156(3) being pre-cognizance is of no relevance to the case as the case is mostly about whether the magistrate has powers to order further investigation after the charge sheet has been framed. As stated above, Section 173(8) is applied after the completion of investigation or after the filing of the charge sheet (Post-cognizance), Section 156(3) being pre-cognizance is of no relevance.
The Supreme Court also referred to other relevant cases to support its statement. It cited Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, in which the Supreme Court stated that further investigation can be ordered even after the charge sheet was filed and that the Magistrate had the authority under the Section 173(8) CrPC to do so, regardless of whether the charge sheet was filed.
The Supreme Court also stated that the right to a fair trial is an important component of the criminal justice system. New evidence may have been uncovered or there may be a need to re-examine the existing evidence. Thus, the Magistrate has the power to order direct further investigation to uphold justice.
Lastly, the court clarified the even without applications being filed by either of the parties, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, suo motu if necessary.
Defects of the Law
- Section 173(8) CrPC
The Section 173(8) CrPC states the authority of the Magistrate as well as the power of police to conduct further investigation after an investigation report has already been submitted under sub-section (2) CrPC. However, the Section does not specifically state the extent of powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation after the charge sheet has been framed. This has led to varied interpretations of said powers by different courts.
- Procedural Delays
A re-examination of the existing evidence as well as the uncovering of new evidence through thorough investigation, leads to justice but also to procedural delays in the trials when the order for further investigation is imposed.
- Limited Guidelines
There are no clear guidelines on how and when the Magistrate can or should exercise the power to order further investigation after the charge sheet has been framed. This may lead to hasty decisions.
Inference
Complexity of the Dispute: The involvement of multiple issues such as procedural delays, limited understanding of the law, and no clear guidelines on the matter suggests that the dispute between the parties was multifaceted. Resolving such complexities would have required thorough examination of the contract terms as well as the parties’ conduct.
Constitutional Interpretation: The interpretation of the Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the Session’s Court, High Court and the Supreme Court, were all different. An official understanding of the two Sections should be made public to avoid further confusions and delays.
Legal Sophistication: The involvement of the Supreme Court at the end suggests the case’s complex nature. Both the parties would have presented detailed legal arguments supported by case laws, statutes and principles to support their respective statements.
Jahnavi Menon
O.P. Jindal Global University