[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hardik Pravinbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 380 of 2024
==========================================================
HARDIK PRAVINBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAYAN L.GUPTA ADVOCATE WITH ADVOCATE MR ASHISH M
DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 23/04/2026
ORDER
1. The challenge is given to the order dated 19.01.2024
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Jafrabad, District Amreli. The order was passed below Exh.1,
where the learned Magistrate rejected the "C" summary
report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Savarkundla Department. The learned Judge has recorded
that the complaint was filed with the police under Sections
395, 397, 353 and other sections of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Damage of Public Property Act and Section 135 of the
Gujarat Police Act.
2. As per the order, the Investigating Officer had
conducted the investigation and had collected the evidence
and statement of the witnesses, and accordingly it was noted
that accused No.34 i.e. the present applicant and accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
No.63 - Shaqeel Abdulsattar Mansuri were falsely named in
the incident. It was noted that they were not present at the
time of the incident. The Investigating Officer therefore, had
submitted "C" summary report in favour of two accused
stating that no offence has been made out against the
accused.
3. The learned concerned Magistrate issued a notice to the
complainant to file his objection. The notice was served and
the complainant/victim remained present. He had no objection
towards the "C" summary report, in spite of this fact, the
learned Magistrate rejected the "C" Summary report.
4. The very order reflects the fact that on considering the
complaint against the named accused with the other
statements, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused
Nos.34 and 63. Later, on request of the accused, the
Investigating Officer had made further investigation and filed
the summary report. The learned Judge was of an opinion that
since the final charge-sheet was filed against the accused and
the Investigating Officer has made further investigation suo-
moto, once a charge-sheet has been filed, then the
Investigating Officer cannot be allowed to file a report seeking
deletion of the names, as once he found sufficient evidence
then he cannot say that there were no sufficient evidence
against the accused.
5. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the
Investigating Officer has made an error in considering himself
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
to be authorized to conduct further investigation after filing
final report to charge-sheet, to come to the conclusion that
the offence is not made out.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L.Gupta on behalf of
learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli referred to the judgment in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.S. Peter, 2008
(2) SCC 383, to submit that the power under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C., is absolute for the Investigating Officer. It gives the
power to the Investigating Officer to further investigate the
case, even after submission of the report.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Gupta states that the learned
Magistrate has committed an error by coming to the
conclusion that the Investigating Officer is not authorized to
conduct further investigation. By placing reliance on the
aforesaid judgment, advocate Mr. Gupta stated that the law
does not mandate prior permission of the Court.
7. In the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. J.A.C.
Saldanha and Ors., 1080 (1) SCC 554, it has been held as
under:
"This provision does not in any way affect the power
of the investigating officer to further investigate the case
even after submission of the report as provided in Sec.
173(8). Therefore, the High Court was in error in holding
that the State Government in exercise of the power of
superintendence u/s. 3 of the Act lacked the power to
direct further investigation into the case. In reaching this
conclusion we have kept out of consideration the
provision contained in Sec. 156(2) that an investigation
by an officer-in-charge of a police station, which
expression includes police officer superior in rank to such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
officer, cannot be questioned on the ground that such
investigating officer had no jurisdiction to carry on the
investigation; otherwise that provision would have been a
short answer to the contention raised on behalf of
respondent 1."
8. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. starts with giving a deeming
effect to the right to the police of further investigation, even
after, the report has been forwarded by him under sub-section
(3) of section 173 Cr.P.C., and on the further investigation so
made, the officer in-charge of the Police Station obtaining
further evidence, oral or documentary, is entitled to forward
to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed.
9. The law does not restrict the Investigating Officer to
conduct the further investigation. The police investigation on
further collection of the evidence, if comes to the conclusion
that no case has been found against the accused, then he can
certainly file a report to the Court.
10. Here, in the present matter, the case was about the
physical presence of the accused in the alleged offence and
the complainant has also affirmed the same and has accepted
the "C" summary against accused Nos.34 and 63.
11. Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. refers to release of an accused
when the evidence are deficient. The intent under the
provision would make it clear that on investigation, it appears
to the officer in charge of the Police Station that there is not
sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate, such official shall
report the same to the Magistrate concerned. The
empowerment under section 169 for the investigation is under
Chapter-XII, including the provision of section 173(8) of the
Cr.P.C.
12. In the case of Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra
with Roopchand Lal Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1968
AIR (SC) 117, the question which arose for consideration was
whether a Magistrate can direct the police to submit a charge-
sheet when the police after investigation in the cognizable
offence had submitted a final report under section 173 of
Cr.P.C. The conflicts were on this point owing to various
different views taken by various High Courts. The facts of the
case suggested that police made an investigation and
submitted a final report under section 173(1) of the Cr.P.C., to
the effect that the offence complained of was false.
12.1 After having considered the power of the Magistrate to
take cognizance under section 190(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C., the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha (supra), had
observed that the entire scheme of Chapter-XVI of the Code,
(earlier to 1973), indicates that the formation of the opinion,
as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for
trial, is that of the officer in-charge of the police station and
that opinion determines whether the report is to be under
section 170, being a 'chargesheet', or under section 169, a
final report. Further, expressing the opinion that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
Magistrate has the power to accept or disagree with the
opinion of the police and if he disagree, he is entitled to adopt
the course available to the Magistrate, as referred in the
judgment, however, it was made clear that the Magistrate
cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet, as the
submission of the report depends upon the opinion formed by
the police and not on the opinion of the Magistrate. Thus, it
was held that the Magistrate cannot compel the police to form
a particular opinion in the investigation, and to submit a
report according to such opinion. That will be really
encroaching on the sphere of the police and compelling the
police to form an opinion so as to accord with the decision of
the Magistrate and send a report either under section 169, or
under section 170, depending upon the nature of the decision.
Thus, it was laid down that such function has to be left to the
police under the Cr.P.C.
13. Having noted the provisions and the law to the subject
and the fact that the police has filed "C" summary, which has
not been objected by the complainant, the order of proceeding
with the trial and rejecting the "C" summary report
ultimately, ordering the Investigating Officer to file a charge-
sheet against the accused, would not fall in the domain of the
Magistrate, where it is absolute opinion of the Investigating
Officer that prevails.
14. In the result, the present revision application is allowed.
The order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Jafrabad rejecting "C" summary is set aside and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/380/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
the "C" summary filed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Savarkundla Department dated 12.01.2024 is allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/20
