'Mere Framing Of Charges No Bar To Order Further Investigation; Victim Has Fundamental Right Of Fair Investigation' : Supreme Court

"The victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial", observed the Supreme Court while ordering further investigation in a case for abduction and attack against NCP MLA Jitendra Awhad.

Mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant, the Court added.

The case relates to the alleged abduction and attack of a Thane-based civil engineer Anant Karmuse by Maharashtra policemen in April 2020 over a critical Facebook post made by him against Awhad, who was then a cabinet minister. As per the complaint, Karmuse was forcefully taken from his residence to the Bungalow of the Minister and was mercilessly beaten by the cops in the presence of Minister for making the Facebook post. Though the victim filed a complaint immediately, the Police did not name the Minister as an accused in the FIR.

Later, the victim approached the Bombay High Court seeking CBI investigation. The High Court passed various orders to monitor the investigation. The initial chargesheet filed by the police did not name the Minister. Subsequently, in view of the constant monitoring by the High Court, Minister Awhad was added as accused two years after the said incident.

The High Court later dismissed the writ petition after noting that the trial court has framed charges. Aggrieved with this, the victim approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, conceded that a further investigation is required in view of lacunae in the investigation. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the victim. Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi and Shekhar Naphade appeared for the accused to oppose the petition.

SC refuses to order CBI investigation

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, after referring to various precedents which hold that prayer for CBI investigation can be allowed only in "rare and exceptional" circumstances, agreed with the High Court's view that CBI investigation is not warranted in the present case.

Constitutional Courts can order further investigation even after charges are framed

The bench then took note of various precedents which hold the constitutional courts can order further investigation even after charges are framed.

Coming to the present case, the bench noted that the investigation was conducted in "a perfunctory manner" although the allegations were very serious. There was failure to collect material evidences. The real investigation started only after the intervention of the High Court.

The bench also took note of the stand of the State that further investigation is needed.

"As observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant", the bench observed.

Court not concerned with change in State's stand

The counsel for the accused submitted that the Advocate General of the State had earlier opposed the petition, but after the change in power, the State changed its stance.

But the Court did not accept this argument.

"The Courts are not concerned with the stand taken by the State at the relevant time and now. Suffice it to say that at the relevant time when the State police agency took a particular stand, accused No. 13 was in power and sitting Minister...The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only", the bench observed.

Holding that the High Court committed a serious error in not allowing further investigation, the Supreme Court ordered that further investigation be carried out, preferably within a period of three months.

Case Title : Anant Thanur Karmuse vs State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136

For Appellant(s) Mr. Mahesh Jhethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Prasad, AOR Mr. Chirag Shah, Adv. Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manini Roy, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Ganu, Adv. Mr. Burzin Bharucha, Adv. Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Kale, Adv. Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Chaitali Jugran, Adv. Ms. Kanjani Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharath Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Dhankhar, Adv.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 173(8)- Victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant - Para 12.3

Change of Govt stand after change in power - The Courts are not concerned with the stand taken by the State at the relevant time and now. Suffice it to say that at the relevant time when the State police agency took a particular stand, accused No. 13 was in power and sitting Minister...The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only - Para 13

Click here to read the judgment