Court On Its Own Motion Re: State vs Pradeep
2005 Latest Caselaw 1105 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. A reference dated 08.01.2003 has been made by the Juvenile Justice Court, Delhi, whereby the court has sought information on the following points:-

1. As to whether the Court should discharge the accused though the discharge application was moved on the false grounds duly forwarded by the prosecution on completion of the investigation, or the court can direct in accordance with law to the investigating agency for the further investigation in proper manner within the appropriate provisions of law after filing of charge sheet in the court and also after non-compliance of the directions of conducting the TIP.

2. It is further requested to guide the court officers as to whether the court can sent the complainant for the purpose of TIP by marking it to the Ld. Link magistrate on its own to ascertain as to whether recovery can be connected with the complainants of theft particularly in the circumstances when there is no application moved by IO for conducting TIP for the reasons best known to him and no application has been moved even by the complainants who may not be aware of the procedure in which they can identify their case property because the court can examine the witness for the purpose of case property only after framing of charges and only on finding a prima facie case against the delinquent which is not a case in the present case.

3. Further it is also requested that the Court may be guided with regard to proceed with such cases as one in hand where for five complaints of five theft only one FIR was registered and only investigation pertaining to one FIR has been proceeded with by the IO and it is not possible to separate complainants as per the recovery or non-recovery in each case on one disclosure of delinquents for five thefts, only one FIR has been registered.

4. It is further requested that Court may be guided for apprising the court officers about the correct position of law and its extent within which the investigating agencies if complete investigation is found absolutely faulty and is causing injustice. Guidance may be given regarding Powers of Magistrates and its extent pertaining to the faulty investigations causing injustice in criminal cases."

2. As regards reference no.1 once the court finds that the application was moved on false grounds although duly forwarded by the prosecution on completion of investigation it is not incumbent on the court to accept the same. It may direct further investigation into the matter. It is the court which has to decide whether the accused should be discharged of the offence. It is not bound by the report forwarded to it. However, it may take the same into consideration. This is amply borne out from the procedure established by law settled by umpteen decisions. Reference may be had to the leading cases on this aspect in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18 and H.S. Bains v. State (U.T. Chandigarh) .

3. As regards reference no.2, the power of the court to do justice are not fettered by any powers of investigation which the police may have. If the court thinks in a particular case and in particular circumstances that a test identification parade (TIP) would be proper in the interest of justice there is no bar to its ordering the same.

4. As regards reference no. 3, this depends on facts of each case. In the event a large number of offences which have been committed at various places, forming a chain of a transaction, there is nothing wrong in recording a single FIR but if the offences be different and distinct with no connection with each other, a composite F.I.R. would not be in order.

5. As regards reference no. 4, the court has full authority and power to order investigation into a particular aspect of the matter, but it cannot direct the Investigating Officer to investigate in a particular manner.

6. Having answered the reference no further action is called for. Criminal Reference 1/2003 is disposed of accordingly.