Not Necessary To Review/Recall/Quash Order Accepting Closure Report Before Carrying Out Further Investigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that the order accepting the closure report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed before carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala summarized the 'further investigation' powers of investigating agencies under Section 173(8) CrPC as follows:

(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.

(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.

(iii) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation.

(iv) There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

In this case, the High Court quashed the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons for the alleged offences on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and filed a chargesheet having once already submitted a final report under sub section (2) of the Section 173 of the CrPC (closure report). The issue raised in appeal filed before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance upon the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation having once already filed a closure report in the past and the same having been accepted by the court concerned at the relevant point of time?

Referring to various earlier judgments on this aspect, the bench observed thus:

"Thus, a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions of this Court rendered in cases where final reports (closure reports) had already been submitted and accepted makes the position of law very clear that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. It is also evident, that prior to carrying out a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report."

The other issues dealt in the case may be read in the headnotes given below.

The court allowed the appeals filed by the State and set aside the High Court order.

Case details

State vs Hemendhra Reddy | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 | SLP (CRL) 7628-7630 OF 2017 | 28 April 2023 | Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 173(8) - Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted - Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed - Though the order passed by the Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. (Para 50, 73, 76-77)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 20 (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 173(8) - Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over - Investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. (Para 77)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; Section 13(1)(e) - Second proviso is in the nature of additional safe guard for the public servant who are accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act against an investigation by a police officer without the knowledge and consent of superior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. It is needless to point-out that, before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary. (Para 88)

Precedents - While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view - Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Co-ordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable. (Para 81)

Criminal Investigation - Criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case. Though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict. (Para 84)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 173(8) - Section 173(2)(i) - Alternatives before a Magistrate when a “Final Report” is filed - The Magistrate may either: (1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the basis of report/material submitted by the investigation officer, (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as per Section 173(8) of the CrPC. (4) may treat the protest complaint as a complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC

Click here to Read/Download Judgment