TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lice in tow, visited the said flat on 15th June, 2008, with the intention of bringing Padmapriya back home. As the door of the flat was found to be locked, the same was broken open, whence Padmapriya's body was found hanging inside. After investigation, the police concluded that the Appellant and Padmapriya had grown close and that the Appellant had convinced Padmapriya to leave her husband, Respondent No. 2, and live with him. The Appellant allegedly concealed that he had taken Padmapriya from her marital home and shifted her to New Delhi, where he had rented out the aforesaid flat at Dwarka in which Padmapriya was subsequently found hanging. The investigation also revealed that the Appellant had procured several official documents, including the rent agreement for the aforesaid flat, based on fraudulent information and false representations that Padmapriya was his lawfully wedded wife. In that regard, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the Appellant before the Trial Court, on 20th August, 2008 and 16th July, 2009, respectively, for offence punishable Under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Pursuant thereto charges have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cedure or Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The High Court also relied on its earlier decision in the case of Sri Balaji v. State of Karnataka ILR 2008 Kar. 3697 which restated the same legal position. Following these decisions, the High Court was pleased to quash P.C.R. No. 21/2009 filed by Respondent No. 2, with liberty to make the necessary application before the Trial Court in CC No. 31/2008 for further investigation and also for framing charges Under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The High Court made it clear that said request ought to be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Trial Court in C.C. No. 31/2008 for further investigation into the offences Under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. This application was however rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 7th August, 2014. The Trial Court has observed that the charge-sheet filed by the police indicated that statements of 76 witnesses had been recorded during the investigation and four articles seized. The Trial Court also noted that the investigating officer had investigated the case from all angles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respects after recording statements of 76 witnesses and seizure of four articles. The investigating officer, before filing the charge-sheet and also the supplementary charge-sheet, has investigated the allegations made in the complaint filed by Smt. Saraswathi (mother of Respondent No. 2) from all angles. Further, the Trial Court has already framed charges and has taken cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheets (i.e. first charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet) filed by the investigating officer, as a consequence of which the case has been set down for trial. It is contended that the High Court, while allowing the petition for quashing filed by the Appellant, had noticed in paragraph 7 of its judgment dated 21st October, 2013, that the claim of Respondent No. 2 in the private complaint was based on the confessional statement of the Accused and two witnesses recorded by COD police during the course of the investigation in Crime No. 109/2008, which has already come on record in CC No. 31/2008. In this context, the Trial Court has noted that it will be open to Respondent No. 2 to request the Court to frame additional charges for offence punishable Under Sections 497, 498 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of charges and taking cognizance, it is open to the Magistrate to direct further investigation either suo motu or on an application filed by the complainant/informant is no more res integra. In a recent decision of this Court (to which one of us, Justice Dipak Misra was party) in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 177, after analysing earlier decisions on the point, it has been held that neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Further investigation in a given case may be ordered only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand. It will be apposite to advert to the dictum in Paragraphs 48 to 51 of the said decision which read thus: 48. As adverted to hereinabove, whereas Section 311 of the Code empowers a Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. 51. In contradistinction, Sections 156, 190, 200, 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly outline the powers of the Magistrate and the courses open for him to chart in the matter of directing investigation, taking of cognizance, framing of charge, etc. Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation Under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance is taken and the Accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of any competence to direct further investigation either suo motu or acting on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant. The direction for investigation by the Magistrate Under Section 202, while dealing with a complaint, though is at a post-cognizance stage, it is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such a direction for investigation is not in the nature of further investigation, as contemplated Under Section 173(8) of the Code. If the power of the Magistrate, in such a scheme envisaged by the Cod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of Respondent No. 2, it was not open to the Court to direct further investigation as the Trial Court had already framed charges and taken cognizance of the case against the Appellant who appeared before it in the said proceedings. The prayer for further investigation was not at the instance of the investigating agency nor on the ground of detection of material evidence. 10. Be that as it may, assuming that the application filed by Respondent No. 2 was maintainable, from the chronology of events, it is indisputable that Crime No. 109/2008 was registered by the local police on the basis of the complaint made by Smt. Saraswathi (mother of Respondent No. 2) on 13th June, 2008. After investigation of the said complaint, charge-sheet was filed on 20th August, 2008 for offence punishable Under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer then filed a supplementary charge-sheet on 16th July, 2009. The Trial Court has already framed charges and taken cognizance as a consequence of which the case is set down for trial, being CC No. 31/2008. Respondent No. 2, however, filed a private complaint in respect of the same incident only on 1st August, 2009, bea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the allegations for the offence punishable Under Sections 306, 497, 498 of Indian Penal Code, yet, it proceeded to direct further investigation on the sole consideration that in the earlier round of proceeding instituted by the Appellant for quashing of the private complaint filed against him by Respondent No. 2 in respect of the same incident, liberty was given to Respondent No. 2 to approach the Trial Court for issuing direction to the investigating officer for further investigation Under Section 173(8). The High Court was of the view that rejection of the application preferred by Respondent No. 2 for further investigation, therefore, would run counter to the liberty so granted and, on that consideration, directed the Trial Court to issue direction to the investigating officer for further investigation in respect of allegation made by the Respondent No. 2 in his complaint. 13. Notably, the second complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was quashed by the High Court vide judgment dated 21st October, 2013, relying on the decision in T.T. Antony (supra). Be that as it may, what is significant to note is that the High Court has not overturned the satisfaction recorded by the Trial C....