No Explanation For Reinvestigation After 3 Years Without Court Permission: Supreme Court Quashes 1998 Booth Capturing Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 18) quashed the case against a man accused of booth capturing in Alwar during 1998 Assembly Rajasthan elections.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan noted that the case was reinvestigated without permission from the magistrate three years after a closure report was filed despite.

“At this stage we may also note that the first final report under section 173(2) was filed on 25.06.1999. 3 years thereafter, at the instance of the Additional SP this exercise of reinvestigation/further investigation has commenced. There is no explanation forthcoming why such an action was taken after lapse of 3 years and that also without seeking permission from the court of the magistrate. Therefore, the appeal succeeds, and the impugned order is set aside”, the Court held.

The FIR in the case was registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 131, 132(3), 135, and 135A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and Section 171F of the IPC. The initial police investigation concluded with a closure report filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on June 25, 1999. This report stated that there was no material implicating the appellant and that the accused could not be identified. Based on this, the magistrate discharged the appellant.

However, on April 18, 2002, the Additional Superintendent of Police (SP) reopened the case and conducted reinvestigation. A fresh chargesheet was filed on June 2, 2003, naming the appellant as an accused, and the magistrate took cognizance of the matter. Subsequently, on January 10, 2013, the trial court framed charges against the appellant.

The appellant challenged the framing of charges before the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the plea, stating that the cognizance order had attained finality. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, Senor Advocate S Muralidhar contended that it was a stale matter in which no protest petition against the closure report was filed.

Justice Oka remarked, “Stale or not depends on the current political scenario!”

He questioned the legality of the reinvestigation, noting that the Additional SP carried out the investigation without obtaining permission from the magistrate, as required under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

“How can police reinvestigate without prior permission of the court? Can there be investigation ordered by a superior police officer when earlier investigation has ended in closure report?” he questioned.

The Court observed that the Additional SP undertook reinvestigation without obtaining an order from the magistrate under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The state sought to rely on Supreme Court decisions in CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy and State v. Aruna Devi. However, the Court noted that neither of these judgments addressed the question of whether police could carry out further investigation without judicial approval after a closure report had been accepted.

The Court highlighted the absence of any explanation for reopening the case three years after the initial closure and criticized the Additional SP's actions.

Terming the circumstances of the case as “very peculiar,” the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the magistrate taking cognizance of the chargesheet as well as the charges framed by the trial court against the appellant.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 5431/2024 

Case Title – Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan