In a recent case adjudicated by the Karnataka High Court, it held that a trial court does not have the vested power to order a further investigation in a criminal trial to be conducted by a different agency, apart from the original investigating agency that conducted the initial investigation.
Brief Facts
It is stated that the high court reversed a special court’s order that had transferred the matter for further investigation from Mahadevapura Police to CID. As per the factual matrix, the police conducted an investigation in respect of an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, 1860 and filed a chargesheet after it’s completion. The mother of the deceased sought a further investigation under section 156(3), which was allowed by the court, however, the court requested the further investigation to be conducted by the CID and not the state police. Such exercise of power by the magistrate was deemed beyond his scope of jurisdiction and power as prescribed by the CrPC.
Issue
- Whether a magistrate of special court can direct further investigation into a criminal case to be done by a different investigative agency than who conducted the initial investigation.
- What is the scope of powers of the judicial authority under section 156(3) and Section 173(8) of CrPC in ordering further investigation.
Contentions of Appellant
The Appellant asserted that the special judge’s order in directing further investigation by CID was against the law. They pointed out that under Section 156(3), CrPC, 1973, the court lacked jurisdiction to transfer and order further investigation by another investigative agency than the one which conducted the initial investigation.
Contentions of Respondent
The Respondent complainant argued that the application for further investigation was not at the hands of the different agency but at the hands the very jurisdictional police, who conducted the investigation. He further contended that the direction is issued for further investigation into the matter, it would suffice.
Observation of the Court
The court upon the perusal of the respective application and the impugned order observed that albeit, the application was filed under section 156(3) by the complainant, however, the concerned court gave a direction for further investigation under section 173(8), CrPC. Secondly, though the said application did not request for further investigation to be conducted by the CID, however, the concerned court in it’s impugned order passed an order for further investigation to be conducted by the CID.
Regarding the above, the High Court observed that, “It is an admitted fact that the investigation was conducted by jurisdictional police i.e., Mahadevapura Police. Directing further investigation by allowing the application for a report to be filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. could not have been directed to a different investigating agency i.e., CID. The power of the concerned Court is restricted only to order further investigation by the same investigating agency and not at the hands of the different investigating agency. Power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the concerned Court. It is too well settled principle of law that a power to order investigation, reinvestigation or further investigation is only with the hands of this Court.” … “… he could not have directed another investigating agency to investigate as that would not be within the sphere of further investigation and, in any case, he does not have the jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation by another agency. Therefore, that part of the order deserves to be lancinated and accordingly it is directed that the investigating agency that had investigated shall carry on the further investigation and such investigation shall be supervised by the Superintendent of Police concerned.”
To elucidate the trite law on the subject, the decision clarifies that though a magistrate is vested with the power to order further investigation under section 156(3) (at pre-cognizance stage) and also under section 173(8) (at post-cognizance stage) of the CrPC, 1973, however, such magistrate does not possess the requisite statutory authority to order a further investigation to be conducted by an investigation agency apart from the jurisdictional police having the initial statutory authority to carry out the investigation. That is because, such power to transfer are alien to a magistrate under CrPC and would only fall within the purview of the High Court under section 482, CrPC, 1973.
Decision
The High Court of Karnataka ordered to allow the criminal petition and quashed the order passed by the special judge. The court further allowed the application for further investigation as filed under Section 173(8) of CrPC to be conducted by the jurisdictional police who submitted their final report.
Case Title: State by Mahadevpura Police Station v. Smt. Padmavathamma C.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2024:KHC:3170
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Date: August 8, 2024
To Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
