<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (8) TMI 1706 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308994</link>
    <description>Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC ordinarily remains within the investigating agency&#039;s domain, and once cognizance has been taken, process issued, and the accused has appeared, the Magistrate cannot direct further investigation on the complainant&#039;s or informant&#039;s application. The trial court had already examined the charge-sheets, witness statements and seizure material, found further investigation unnecessary, and noted that additional charges could still be framed if evidence warranted. The High Court&#039;s interference was unjustified because it did not displace that reasoning and treated earlier liberty to approach the trial court as an automatic basis for further investigation. The order directing further investigation was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2023 21:24:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1706 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308994</link>
      <description>Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC ordinarily remains within the investigating agency&#039;s domain, and once cognizance has been taken, process issued, and the accused has appeared, the Magistrate cannot direct further investigation on the complainant&#039;s or informant&#039;s application. The trial court had already examined the charge-sheets, witness statements and seizure material, found further investigation unnecessary, and noted that additional charges could still be framed if evidence warranted. The High Court&#039;s interference was unjustified because it did not displace that reasoning and treated earlier liberty to approach the trial court as an automatic basis for further investigation. The order directing further investigation was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>