Accused Need Not Be Heard By Magistrate Before Directing Police To Carry Out Further Investigation U/S 173(8) CrPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Magistrate court has the power to direct further investigation in a case and merely because the Magistrate did not given any notice to the accused while directing the police to further investigate the matter, that itself is not a ground to quash the order for further probe.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Aneegowda, challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 26.3.2021 against the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, permitting for further investigation in the case registered against the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 420 of IPC.

Complainant B J Nagarathnamma and another registered a private complaint against the petitioners before the Magistrate court. It referred the complaint to the police for registering the FIR and filing the final report. The police after receipt of the complaint registering the FIR in Crime No.461/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 34, 120B, 471, 420, 463, 468, 506(B) of IPC and after the investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 201 of IPC.

Subsequently, the Magistrate took cognizance and also secured the presence of the petitioner and framed the charges and subsequently issued summons to the complainant CW1.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) filed an application under Section 173(8) of IPC for directing the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. Subsequently, the said interlocutory application was withdrawn after objection was raised by the petitioner/accused counsel.

After framing of charges and the matter was posted for hearing in May 2021. Once again the Investigating Officer appeared before the court filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation, which was allowed by the Magistrate vide impugned order dated 26.3.2021.

The petitioners contended that when the case was adjourned to some date and without notifying the accused the trial court passed the impugned order by advancing the case before the court and passed order for further investigation. Therefore, without giving an opportunity for the petitioner ordering for further investigation, is not correct. Further, the Magistrate has power to direct the police to further investigate, but once the trial began after framing of the charges, the Magistrate has no power to direct the police to further investigate the matter.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying the Investigating Officer who had filed the charge sheet had not properly investigated the matter. There were various offences made out in the complaint regarding forging the signature, creating the documents and selling the property. Such being the case, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet for the offence only under Section 420 of IPC. He has not properly investigated the matter, therefore it is necessary for the Investigating Officer for further investigation and to file an additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., which is permissible.

Findings:

Considering the first contention of the petitioner that impugned order was passed ex-parte, the court relied on Apex court judgment in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others. It said, “In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra the court need not hear the accused for 12 redirecting the police to further investigate. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable under the law.”

Rejecting the submission of the petitioner that once the trial began the Magistrate has no power to direct the police for further investigation, the court relied on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Devendra Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar reported in (2022) and said “In view of the above said judgment the Magistrate has power to direct the police for further investigation for fair investigation.”

Dismissing the petition it said “I am of the view, merely the police filed the charge sheet and cognizance taken, the Court cannot confine to the charge sheet. If the Investigating Officer makes an application for further investigation of the matter to the Magistrate, the Magistrate has power to permit the police to further investigate the matter. It cannot be construed as reinvestigation and merely the Magistrate not given any notice to the accused while directing the police to further investigate the matter, that itself is not a ground to quash the impugned order for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, I am of the view the petitioner not made out a case for setting aside the impugned order.”

Appearance: Advocate Nataraj G for Petitioner

HCGP Anitha Girish FOR R1.

Advocate Surendra Kumar For R2, R3

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

Case Title: Annegowda AND State By Yeshvanthapura Police Station & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9009 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order