Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100199
CRM-M-2265-2018 2023:PHHC:100199
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
263 CRM-M-2265-2018
Date of decision: 03.08.2023
Mohan Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the
supplementary chargesheet/challan dated 09.03.2017 in FIR No.183, dated
27.11.2013 registered under Sections 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 477A IPC, at Police
Station Saha, District Ambala as well as order dated 03.06.2017 passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala.
2. Learned counsel contends that after having examined 8 witnesses,
without any permission obtained from the Magistrate, further investigation was
carried out and supplementary challan has been presented. He relies on Vikas
Gupta vs. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 12, Harmel Singh vs. State
of UT Chandigarh, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 789 and Neetu Dheer vs. State of
Haryana, 2016(2) Law Herald 1387.
3. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that even a bare
perusal of the provision that does not envisage that there is any permission is
required from the Magistrate. It is only proprietary that police seek formal
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100199
CRM-M-2265-2018 2023:PHHC:100199
permission to continue further investigation however, there is no statutory
obligation. He relies on Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346.
4. Heard.
5. It would be worthwhile to make a reference to the judgment in the
case of Rama Chaudhary (supra), wherein Hon'ble The Supreme Court had
upheld the judgment of High Court which rejected the revision, by observing and
holding that law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for
further investigation. Relevant paras reads thus:-
"11. As observed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of
Gujarat and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 347, the prime consideration
for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and
substantial justice. The hands of investigating agency for
further investigation should not be tied down on the ground of
mere delay. In other words, the mere fact that there may be
further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way
of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving
at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective
justice.
12. If we consider the above legal principles, the order dated
19.02.2008 of the trial Court summoning the witnesses named
in the supplementary charge-sheet cannot be faulted with. It is
true that after enquiry and investigation charges were framed on
11.03.2004 and thereafter in the course of trial about 21
witnesses were examined. In the meantime, Police submitted
supplementary charge-sheet with certain new materials and on
the basis of supplementary charge- sheet, the prosecution filed
an application on 12.01.2008 in a pending Sessions Trial No. 63
of 2004 to the trial Court for summoning the persons named in
the charge-sheet for their examination as prosecution witnesses.
On a careful perusal of the application, the trial Court, by order
dated 19.02.2008, allowed the same and has summoned those
witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet.
13. The law does not mandate taking prior permission from the
Magistrate for further investigation. It is settled law that
carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-
sheet is a statutory right of the Police. [vide K. Chandrasekhar
vs. State of Kerala and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 223.] The material
collected in further investigation cannot be rejected only
because it has been filed at the stage of trial. The facts and
circumstances show that the trial Court is fully justified to
summon witnesses examined in the course of further
investigation. It is also clear from Section 231 of the Cr.P.C.
that the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as witness
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100199
CRM-M-2265-2018 2023:PHHC:100199
even though such person is not named in the earlier charge-
sheet. All those relevant aspects have been taken note of by the
learned Magistrate while summoning the witnesses based on
supplementary charge-sheet. This was correctly appreciated by
the High Court by rightly rejecting the revision. We fully agree
with the said conclusion."
6. In Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7
SCC 407 Hon'ble The Supreme Court observed that, "Thus, CrPC leaves clear
scope for conducting of further inquiry and filing of a supplementary charge-sheet,
if necessary, with such additional facts and evidence as may be collected by the
investigating officer in terms of sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC to the
court. To put it aptly, further investigation by the investigating agency, after
presentation of a challan (charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 CrPC) is
permissible in any case impliedly but in no event is impermissible."
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in State vs. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 515, observed that, "Thus, in view of the law laid down by this
Court in the various decisions cited hereinabove, it is well settled that sub section
(8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any
direction from the court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation,
even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police
report earlier submitted."
8. In the present case, reply by way of affidavit has been filed by
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barar, para 3 of the preliminary submissions
thereof reads thus:
"3. That in the meanwhile, the Police of Police Station-Saha
was informed about filing of the Supplementary Challan in the
above FIR No.183 dated 27.11.2013 in view of the Special
Audit of Sub Division and report in this regard was submitted
about the involvement in embezzlement of Nigam Revenue by
the petitioner. During conducting the investigation in this
regard, Virender Kumar SDO and Surender Kumar SDC,
UHBVN, Kesri Saha were joined in the investigation and after
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100199
CRM-M-2265-2018 2023:PHHC:100199
the verification, the copies of Enquiry Report conducted by
Prem Chand Saini Enquiry Officer, OP Division UHBVN
Kaithal bearing Memo No.CH-1/INO-Kesri dated 25.08.2015
and Special Audit Report Memo No.CA/EA/IAR-51/CH- 212
dated 05.03.2014 were taken into possession by the police. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded and as per the
Enquiry Report as well as Special Audit Report, the petitioner
is found to have embezzled Rs.19,77,726/-. Accordingly the
Supplementary Challan under Section-173 (8) Cr.P.C. was
prepared on 09.03.2017 (Annexure P1) and the same was filed
in the Court of Learned Illaqua Magistrate, Ambala, which has
been legally accepted by the Learned Court vide Order dated
03.06.2017 (Annexure P-2). Since the Supplementary Challan
as well as acceptance of the same are legal and thus the same
are not liable to be quashed or set-aside and the instant petition
being meritless is liable to be dismissed."
9. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are
distinguishable on facts.
10. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the
huge amount having been alleged to be embezzeled by him with regard to which
the enquiry report as well as special audit report were received, whereupon
supplementary challan was presented, in light of the law as enunciated in the
afore-referred judgments, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and as
such, the same is hereby dismissed.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
03.08.2023 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100199
4 of 4
