Raghuveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan & anr.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties as also learned Public Prosecutor. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner

Raghuveer Singh with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.221/2016 registered at Police Station, Sadar Alwar and the proceedings

initiated on its basis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in FIR No.221/2016 registered for the offences under Section 302/34, 120-B and 201 IPC, a

final report (negative report) was filed by the police after investigation, which came to be accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2017 on

the application moved by complainant Shriram stating his no objection. Thereafter, the police surprisingly initiated further investigation and arrested

the petitioner and one Sanjay Kumar on 7.8.2017.

The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after acceptance of FR (negative report) by the Court of competent jurisdiction,

the Police could not have further investigated in the matter without obtaining permission of the concerned Court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017 called for the explanation of

Superintendent of Police, Alwar as also Investigating Officer as to why further investigation was conducted after acceptance of the FR. In

compliance of the said order, explanations were submitted by both of them, which are on record. SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Alwar has

mentioned in his explanation that in FIR No.221/2016, he received an endorsement made by SP, Alwar on the application submitted by

complainant Shriram to further investigate the matter. Thereafter, he called the case diary. Shri Ramesh Chand, ASI filed an application before the

court concerned for taking back the case diary. He informed that the criminal clerk of the Court, after verifying from the record informed him that

the case diary had already been sent back to police station on 2.2.2017. It has further been stated in the explanation that some new facts came

forward during investigation that the life of wife of deceased Rajendra is under serious threat as the real culprits came to know that the police has

got reliable information about their involvement in the matter and therefore, immediate action was required to be taken in the case. SHO has stated

in the reply that for this reason petitioner Raghuveer Singh and another person Sanjay Kumar were arrested on 7.8.2017. It has been admitted by

SHO that inadvertently he committed a mistake by not obtaining formal permission of the Court to further investigate the matter.

Superintendent of Police, Alwar has stated in his reply that the complainant submitted an application before him for further investigation in the

matter, on which he directed the concerned SHO to reopen the case for further investigation. He has also stated that he was not informed as to

whether the FR has already been accepted by the concerned Court or not.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgment:-

(I)- State of Rajasthan Vs. Arunadevi and ors., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 1.

(II)- Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), reported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 479.

(III)- State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.S. Peter, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383.

(IV)- Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2017 Cr.L.R. (SC) 219.

In the case of Arunadevi & Ors.(Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

4......... A perusal of the judgment of the majority shows that it took the view that dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code is no

bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts; but the same could be done only in exceptional circumstances some of which

have been illustrated in the judgment. Further observation in this regard is that a fresh complaint can be entertained, inter alia, when fresh evidence

comes forward. In the present case, this is precisely what had happened, as on further investigation being made, fresh materials came to light which

led to the filing of further report stating that a case had been made out.

In the case of Ram Lal Narang (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

..................Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their record and respect for the Court by

seeking its formal permission to make further investigation.

In the case of A.S. Peter (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

5.Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further

investigation even after filing of the chargesheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and re-

investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.

In the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel (Supra), Hon''ble Supreme Court, after discussing at length various relevant judgments passed

earlier on this point, has observed as under:-

On an overall survey of the pronouncements of this Court on the scope and purport of Section 173(8) of the Code and the consistent trend of

explication thereof, we are thus disposed to hold that though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake

further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof, (emphasis added) before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its

approval, no such power is available therefor to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process

has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither the learned Magistrate suo motu nor on an

application filed by the complainant/informant direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating

agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial,

the life purpose of the adjudication in hand.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainantrespondent Shriram has stated that it is an established legal proposition that further investigation

can be made by the Investigating Officer, though the Magistrate is not empowered to issue direction for further investigation. His submission is that

though it was desirable for the Investigating officer to seek formal permission of the Court concerned for further investigation, yet if such formal

approval was not obtained inadvertently or due to bonafide mistake then it can at the most amount to an irregularity and not illegality and the FIR

cannot be quashed on account of such irregularity.

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions:-

(I)- Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762.

(II)- Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 2078.

(III)- Satish Pandurang Jagtap vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995 Cr.LJ.1509.

In the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has formulated certain principles in para 30

of the judgment, wherein at serial No.6 following observations have been made:-

It has been a procedure of proprietary that the police has to seek permission of the Court to continue further investigation and file

supplementary chargesheet. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such would support the view that

we are taking in the present case.

Similarly, in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

.......................................................................................

It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further

investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter. Keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective

trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal

of the matter by the Courts.

.......................................................................................

Similar view has been expressed by Bombay High Court in the case of Satish Pandurang Jagtap (Supra), while following the judgment of Apex

Court in Ram Lal Narang''s case wherein it was held as under:-

As observed by us earlier, there was no provision in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 which, expressly or by necessary implication,

barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the magistrate. Neither Section 173 nor Section

190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice,

convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. In our view, notwithstanding that a

magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to

further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the

police desired to make a further investigating the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to

take further investigation.

(emphasis supplied)

Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that though an application was intended to be moved on behalf of the Investigating officer seeking formal

permission of the competent Court but when he was informed about the fact that the case diary had already been returned to the police station, the

same could not be moved inadvertently. His further submission is that looking to the fact that threat to life of deceased Rajendra was there and

immediate action was required to be taken by the Investigating Officer, this is why further investigation came to be made in the case. Latest status

report of investigation has been submitted by learned Public prosecutor wherein it is stated that petitioner Raghuveer Singh and Sanjay were having

illicit relations with Vinita, wife of deceased Rajendra and this fact had already come in the knowledge of Goradevi, mother of deceased, and this

was the reason for which the offence was committed by Raghuveer Singh and Sanjay by making the criminal conspiracy.

Having considered the facts and submissions mentioned by rival sides, this Court is of the view that the pertinent issue in regard to this misc.

petition is as to whether further investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer after acceptance of the FR (negative report) is liable to be

quashed and set aside on the ground that no formal permission was sought from the Court concerned.

On perusal of the various judgments stated above, the legal proposition appears to be well established that further investigation can certainly be

made even after final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted and there is no bar on the power given under Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer for further investigation. However, without obtaining formal approval of the Court whether such further

investigation is permissible or not is to be ascertained by this Court.

On perusal of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements stated above, it is obvious that for making

further investigation in the matter it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to obtain prior permission of the Court concerned, but it is only

desirable to inform the Court in order to show respect and regard to it before making any further investigation. This has been laid down even in the

judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. In the instant matter in hand, the Investigating Officer asked ASI Ramesh Chand to obtain case

diary from the Court prior to making any further investigation. When it was informed to him that the case diary had already been returned to the

police station, he inadvertently did not take care to file application informing the Court concerned that further investigation is intended to be made in

this matter. He made further investigation looking to the new facts informed to him.

In light of the settled legal proposition stated above and the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that making

such application before the Court is not mandatory but desirable only. No illegality can be attached to the action taken by the Investigating Officer

and the SHO Police Station, Sadar, which may call for exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the

FIR No.221/2016 and the proceedings initiated on its basis. In the result, this Court is not inclined to allow this miscellaneous petition and the same

is dismissed.