The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 207 of 2020 Subodh Bauri … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Inspector General of Police (Training) cum Nodal Officer, Centralized Public Grievances Cell, Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka 5. 6. 7. Officer-in-Charge, SC/ST Police Station, Jamtara … Respondents Superintendent of Police, Jamtara Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jamtara With W.P. (Cr.) No. 465 of 2021 Subodh Bauri … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Jharkhand Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Police, Ranchi Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, 6. 7. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Regional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka 8. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Dumka 9. 10. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamtara Superintendent of Police, Jamtara … Respondents With W.P. (Cr.) No. 107 of 2022 Tarun Kumar Gupta … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Ranchi Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Jharkhand, Ranchi Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka Superintendent of Police, Jamtara Investigating Officer, office of the Regional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka Subodh Bauri … Respondents 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. With W.P. (Cr.) No. 153 of 2022 2 Tarun Kumar Gupta … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Ranchi Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Jharkhand, Ranchi Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka Superintendent of Police, Jamtara Investigating Officer, office of the Regional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
prima facie ground for believing that the accused has committed the offence or not. The decision of Vinay Tyagi (supra) was considered in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] , Samaj Parivartan Samudaya [Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 365] , Vinay Tyagi [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] , and Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] ; Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an 4 accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi [Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603] . Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel [Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 331] , Athul Rao [Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 14 SCC 298 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] and Bikash Ranjan Rout [Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 613] have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1997) 1 SCC 361] and Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., (2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] also stand overruled.” 6. In view of clear position of law as discussed above, particularly, the judgment of Vinay Tyagi (supra) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya(supra), the learned Magistrate is required to take into account both the report under section 173(2) as well section 173(8). The Court finds further that these facts were not agitated by the petitioners by way of filing proper petition before the learned court where the case is pending. If such observation is already there, the said report is also required to be on the record so that looking into both the reports the trial may proceed. 7. In view of the above observations, the petitioners and the informant/complainant are at liberty to file proper petition before the 5 learned court and on that petition, the learned court will pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and in view of the judgments passed in Vinay Tyagi (supra) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra). 8. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of and the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law. 9.
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate [In W.P. (Cr.)-107/22 & 153/22] ----- For the State Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate [In W.P. (Cr.)-207/20 & 465/21] : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III [In W.P. (Cr.)-465/21 & 107/22] Mrs. Rashmi Lal, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III [In W.P. (Cr.)-153/22] Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III [In W.P. (Cr.)-207/20] ----- 07/28.06.2023 In all these petitions, SC/ST P.S. Case Nos.01/2020 and 02/2020 are subject matter. 2. Mr. Navin Kumar and Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused jointly submit that the case has been investigated by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) and enquiry report has been submitted to the Investigation Officer and subsequent to that the police has submitted final form and charge-sheet against the accused. The accused are aggrieved that the enquiry report of the CID is not on the record and hence trial will be prejudiced. 3. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- informant submits that he is appearing in W.P. (Cr.) Nos. 207 of 2020 and 465 of 2021, in which, the prayer has been made that the report of the CID is not required to be considered. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State jointly submit that the charge has already been framed against one of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the judgment in the case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, it is well settled that positive and negative reports submitted under Sub-sections (2) and (8) of Section 173 respectively must be read conjointly to determine if there is
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)