2020 (3) TMI 1377 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant denied right to be heard in further investigation application under CrPC

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat and Ors.

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant, a co-accused, should be impleaded as a party in the Special Criminal Application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).2. Applicability of Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules in the context of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the appellant, a co-accused, should be impleaded as a party in the Special Criminal Application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant, already charge-sheeted and undergoing trial, should be heard or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused, Mr. Bhaumik, who had not been charge-sheeted. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court erred in refusing to implead the appellant as a party in the writ petition filed by the victim. They cited previous judgments, including Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka and Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, to support the claim that a complainant does not have the right to seek further investigation once a charge-sheet is framed. Additionally, it was argued that the appellant should be a necessary and proper party due to allegations against the investigating agency and for effective adjudication.Conversely, the private respondent and the State of Gujarat contended that the appellant, already charge-sheeted, had no locus in the application for further investigation concerning Mr. Bhaumik. They relied on precedents such as Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, which establish that a proposed accused has no locus at this stage for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.The Court concluded that no error was committed by the High Court in dismissing the appellant's application to be impleaded. It was emphasized that the appellant, against whom no relief was sought for further investigation, had no locus or say in the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Court noted that even the proposed accused, Mr. Bhaumik, would not have any say at this stage. Therefore, the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's application to be impleaded as a party respondent.2. Applicability of Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules in the context of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC:The appellant's counsel also relied on Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which mandates that all parties to the proceedings from which the appeal or application arises shall be made parties to the appeal or application. However, the Supreme Court found that Rule 51 did not apply in the context of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Court clarified that proceedings arising out of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC cannot be equated with appeals or applications against orders passed in criminal cases as stated in Rule 51. Therefore, Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules had no application in this case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant, a co-accused already charge-sheeted and undergoing trial, had no locus or right to be heard in the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC concerning another accused, Mr. Bhaumik. The Court also ruled that Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules did not apply to proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC.