Tripura High Court
Smt. Madhuchanda Saha vs Mamata Saha on 1 April, 2021
Page - 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Petn. No.32/2020
Smt. Madhuchanda Saha, W/o Sri P. S. Katikeya
of Jaganath Bari Road, Agartala,
P.S. - West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
.............. Petitioner(s).
Vs.
1. Mamata Saha, W/o Lt. Kalyan Prasad Saha,
resident of Jaganath Bari Road, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
2. Smt. Susmita Chatterjee, W/o Sri Raju Chatterjee,
resident of Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
3. Sri Rajib Chatterjee, S/o Lt. Bibu Ranjan Chjatterjee,
resident of Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
4. Sri Shyamal Saha, S/o. Lt. Lalit Mohan Saha,
resident of Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
5. Smt. Sibani Saha, W/o Sri Shyamal Saha,
resident of Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala,
PS. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
6. Sri Jaha Banerjee alias Debabrata,
S/o Monoranjan Banerjee of Jagannath Bari Road,
Agartala, PS. West Agartala, Dist - West Tripura.
7. The State of Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 7
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Piyali Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samrat Ghosh, Addl. P.P.,
Mr. Harekrishna Bhowmik, Advocate.
Date of hearing & judgment : 1st April, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
This petition is filed by the original complainant. She has
challenged an order dated 16th November, 2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, rejecting her application for
directing the police to carry out further investigation.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents No.1
to 6 on 13th November, 2016 before the West Agartala Women Police
Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 448,
426, 323 read with Section 120B of IPC. The police filed a charge sheet
upon completion of the investigation. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance and I am told that charges were also framed and two witnesses
were examined, at which stage, the petitioner moved an application dated
6th June, 2019 before the learned Magistrate and prayed that further
investigation may be ordered which should be carried out by an impartial
Page - 3 of 7
and independent agency. This application was dismissed by the impugned
order by the learned Judge recording that in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of Atul Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.
reported in AIR 2017 SC 4021, he does not have power to order further
investigation. At this stage, the petitioner filed this petition.
[3] Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel, Ms. Piyali
Chakraborty, submitted that the view taken by the learned Judge is
erroneous. The decision in case of Atul Rao(supra) has been overruled by
a three-Judge Bench in case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs.
State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in AIR 2019 SC 5233. She submitted
that in the present case the police had seized the CCTV footage which
clearly showed the manner in which the alleged incident took place.
However such footage was not sent for forensic analysis and in absence of
which such electronic evidence would be open to criticism of being not
free from tampering.
[4] On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. Harekrishna Bhowmik
for the respondents No.1 to 6, opposed the petition contending that even
by virtue of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya(supra), the power of the Magistrate to order further
investigation would stop once the charges are framed at which stage trial
Page - 4 of 7
can be stated to have commenced. In the present case, the charges were
framed and two witnesses were also examined before the petitioner filed
the application for further investigation.
[5] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Samrat Ghosh,
submitted that appropriate order may be passed in the interest of fair
investigation.
[6] The order passed by the learned Magistrate is clearly erroneous
since it proceeds on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court in case of
Atul Rao(supra) which has been overruled by the later 3 Judge Bench
judgment in case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat and Anr. In the decision in case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya,
the Court had made following observations :
"38. 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 (supra), Samaj
Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep
Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) 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
Page - 5 of 7
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 mid-way 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 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) of the Cr.PC,
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 (supra). Therefore, to the extent that
the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao
(supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary,
they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State
(Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of
West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.
Page - 6 of 7
39. We now come to certain other judgments that were cited
before us. King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18,
was strongly relied upon by Shri Basant for the proposition that
unlike superior Courts, Magistrates did not possess any inherent
power under the Cr.P.C. Since we have grounded the power of the
Magistrate to order further investigation until charges are framed
under Section 156(3) read with Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C, no
question as to a Magistrate exercising any inherent power under
the Cr.P.C would arise in this case."
[7] It is true that in this decision the Supreme Court while holding
that once the Magistrate taking cognizance in a criminal case his power to
order further investigation does not cease, it has been observed that he
would continue to enjoy such powers till the commencement of the trial.
The term commencement of the trial has been explained as framing of the
charge. However, the question is, whether the later portion of these
observations namely, that the power of the Magistrate to order further
investigation would continue till the commencement of the trial can also
be seen as a ratio of the decision. This issue, may require further
examination and can be gone into in an appropriate case. For the present
case, it is undisputable that the High Court as a constitutional Court and
by virtue of Section 482 of Cr.P.C enjoys such power to order further
investigation at any stage of the trial. Taking recourse to such powers, I
find that sending the CCTV footage for forensic analysis for its
Page - 7 of 7
authenticity and to ascertain whether it is tampered or tamperproof it
would be necessary to order limited further investigation. I am conscious
that the prosecution has already examined two witnesses, however,
bringing on record proof as to truthfulness or otherwise of the CCTV
footage would not be prejudicial to the defendants.
[8] Under the circumstances, it is provided that the concerned
investigating officer shall send the recovered CCTV footage for forensic
analysis to FSL for its certification whether it is tampered or tamperproof
and produce the certificate before the Court as soon as it is received. After
this report from FSL is received, if the accused require further cross-
examination of the witnesses who were already examined, it would be
open for them to apply to the learned Magistrate for recalling such
witnesses for such purpose.
With these observations and directions, petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
