Further Investigation Can Be Directed Even After Filing Of Chargesheet & Commencement Of Trial : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that further investigation can be directed even after the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. Taking support of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others., (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Court highlighted that the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do substantial justice.

However, before directing such an investigation, the Court, after going through the available material, should apply its mind to whether an investigation of the concerned allegations is required.

In the present case, the complainant had lodged a case of cruelty against her husband. Pertinently, in the FIR, she had not alleged any act of harassment in connection with the dowry demand against the present appellants (complainant's in-laws). Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the husband.

Now, as per the initial statement deposed by the complainant, before the Trial Court, she did not mention the present appellants. However, around two years later, in the later statement, she alleged harassment against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.

Following this, she filed an application under Section 173(8) of CrPC seeking further/ fresh investigation with respect to cruelty charges against the present appellants. Though the Trial Court had rejected the application, the same was allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

After perusing the material on record, the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta opined that the High Court had grossly erred while directing a fresh investigation. It reasoned that the application was filed at a highly belated stage.

“On going through the material placed on record, we find that in the present case, the High Court grossly erred and transgressed its jurisdiction, while directing fresh investigation into the matter, totally ignoring the fact that the application filed under section 173(8) CrPC was highly belated.”

The Court pointed out that in the initial deposition, there were no allegations against the appellants. It stressed that even in the deferred statement, the allegations were vague.

At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the complainant had already testified at the pending trial against her husband Sanjay Gautam and in the deposition made on 12th April, 2012, no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against the appellants. Even in the deferred examination-in-chief recorded on 24th March, 2014, absolutely vague allegations were levelled against appellant No. 2.”

The Court also pointed out that the complainant had the option to explore other available remedies including filling an application under Section 319 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) of CrPC.

“Undeniably, the complainant had the liberty to set out her entire case/grievances in her examination-in-chief and make a prayer to the trial Court that the remaining family members who had been left out, should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. If, at all, certain facts were left out from being narrated in the deposition of the complainant, an application under Section 311 CrPC could have been filed for recalling her and for conducting the further examination.”

Before parting, the Court also pointed out that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, were admittedly living separately from the complainant and her husband, who were residing together in Bangalore.

Finding no justification for the High Court to direct further investigation, the Court rendered the impugned judgment as unstainable and quashed the same. While doing so, the Court also left it open for the complainant to take recourse to the available remedies, including the ones mentioned above.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Prasad Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR

Respondent: Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Mythili S., Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv., Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Mr. Ravichandra Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, AOR Ms. Shagun Saproo, Adv.

Case Name: RAMPAL GAUTAM vs. THE STATE., Diary No. - 33274/2016

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Click here to read/ download the order