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.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a co-accused already charge-sheeted and undergoing trial, had no right to be heard in the application for ... Seeking to be joined as Respondent No. 4 in the said Special Criminal Application - seeking further investigation against other persons (other than the Appellant who is one of the Accused and is already charge-sheeted) - HELD THAT:- No error has been committed by the High Court dismissing the application submitted by the Appellant herein to implead him in the Special Criminal Application filed by the private Respondent herein challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to one another Accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date. Therefore, it is not at all appreciable how the Appellant against whom no relief is sought for further investigation has any locus and/or any say in the application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. How he can be said to be a necessary and a proper party. It is required to be noted that, as such, even the proposed Accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at this stage in an application Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. When the proposed Accused against whom the further investigation is sought, namely Shri Bhaumik is not required to be heard at this stage, there is no question of hearing the Appellant-one of the co-Accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and the trial against whom is in progress and no relief of further investigation is sought against him. Therefore, the High Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application submitted by the Appellant to implead him as a party Respondent in the Special Criminal Application. Proceedings arising out of an application Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be equated with the appeal or application against the order passed in criminal case as stated in Rule 51 - Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules has no application at all. There is no substance in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed - Appeal dismissed. 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.