Supreme Court: Court Can Direct Further/Re-Investigation However Not In A Particular Direction

CASE TITLE:
Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar &Ors.

DATE OF ORDER:
12 October 2022

JUDGES:
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose

PARTIES:
Appellant: Devendra Nath Singh
Respondent: State of Bihar &Ors.

SUBJECT

The High Court cannot order to merely look into the case from one viewpoint, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday. The appeal contesting the Patna High Court’s ruling was being handled by the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose.The order dated 10.09.2018 issued by the High Court of Judicature in Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 649 of 2016 is being contested in this appeal.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

The Code of Criminal procedure, 1973

• Section 173(8) -Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
• Section 482 -Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

BRIEF FACTS

• The stated petition below Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 19731was filed with the aid of using respondent No. three of the prevailing appeal, in opposition to the order dated 21.06.2014, as surpassed with the aid of using the ACJM, Barh, District Patna in Barh Police Station Case No. one hundred fifteen of 2012 whereby, the discovered Magistrate had taken consciousness of the offences below Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at the allegations in opposition to the respondent No. three of misappropriation of shares really well worth Rs. 16,99,648/- from the godown of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation at some point of the years 2010-eleven and 2011-12.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, was justified in issuing directions to the Magistrate to order further investigation though, the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet had been filed and who had taken cognizance, did not adopt any such process?
• Whether the High Court was justified in passing the order impugned without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that because the appellant was not named in the FIR, was not charged, and was not even a party in the High Court proceedings, the High Court could not have issued a specific directive to the Magistrate to direct the police to investigate the appellant’s role.
• The learned counsel further argued that this Court has consistently held that under the CrPC’s scheme, it is up to the officers in charge of a particular police station to decide whether or not to prosecute a particular person; and, this Court has ruled that, despite the police’s disagreement, the Magistrate may use his authority under Section 156(3) CrPC to order a new investigation or to immediately file a complaint under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC in cases where he believes the police’s final report is unsatisfactory.
• However, the learned counsel claimed that the High Court could not have given instructions for using this power in a specific way when addressing the petition brought by respondent number three. Additionally, he cited the ruling in Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Others: (2018) 12 SCC 30.
• It was argued that this Court held that the High Court could not have issued such a direction in the exercise of its inherent powers because the investigation of an offence was a statutory power of the police, and it was for the State to decide whether to send up the appellant for trial. This Court dealt with a case where the High Court issued directions to the investigating agency to investigate the appellant who had not been sent up for trial.
• The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that before issuing the contested orders, the High Court should have given the appellant a chance to be heard. The learned attorney would contend that the standard for determining whether a person has a right to be heard in a challenge to an order made by a magistrate does not depend on whether that person had a right to be heard by the magistrate in the first instance. Instead, the entitlement to hearing must be evaluated independently by taking into account the outcomes of the proceedings in which a hearing is sought.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The appellant was a high-ranking officer, and it appears that he exerted influence over the other officers in the internal investigation to have them exonerate him, according to learned counsel for respondent No. 3. This argument is used to support the impugned order. A copy of the audit report from May 31, 2012, which served as the foundation for the contested FIR, has been filed and has been extensively cited throughout arguments.
• The fundamental goal of an investigation and inquiry, whether conducted by the police or a magistrate, according to the learned counsel, is to ensure that those who have actually committed the crime are booked and that those who have not are not brought before a judge and jury. The learned counsel has argued that in light of these and other observations that such demands are consistent with the spirit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the aforementioned crimes of food grain defalcation in order to bring the real offenders to justice and prevent similar offences from happening in the future.
• The knowledgeable attorney has additionally argued that the Magistrate, to whom a final report is presented, has the power and authority to object to the report and to seek additional investigation. However, the fact that the Magistrate has this authority does not automatically mean that the High Court cannot employ its inherent jurisdiction to order further inquiry in a suitable case where it becomes apparent that the investigation in a matter has not been done properly.
• The High Court cannot be faulted for exercising its inherent powers in the present case because the crime in question has consequences for society as a whole, even though those powers are used ex debito justitiae. It has also been argued that the inherent powers cannot be used by the High Court routinely and can only be used in extreme cases.
• The learned attorney for the respondent has further argued that prior to this Court granting an interim stay, the necessary investigation had already begun and been transferred to the Economic Offences Unit, where the allegations against the appellant have been found to be presumptively true. However, further action has been postponed due to this Court’s stay order.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

• The bench was unmistakably of the opinion that following Popular Muthiah’s lead, in which this Court sent the case back to the High Court for reconsideration with the appellant given the chance to be heard there, would serve no purpose. Some of the notable and distinctive characteristics of the current case include the fact that the departmental orders and the audit report serve as the foundation for the accusations and imputations; it was undisputed that the appellant held the position of District Manager at the relevant time, and we have previously affirmed the High Court’s use of its inherent powers to order additional investigation into the appellant’s participation.
• The court further held that even if the appellant had been cleared in departmental proceedings, this fact alone might not be conclusive of a criminal investigation; therefore, the High Court could not have disregarded all other aspects of the case and the significant issues that had come to light before it for this reason alone.
• The court further held that even if the appellant had been cleared in departmental proceedings, this fact alone might not be conclusive of a criminal investigation; therefore, the High Court could not have disregarded all other aspects of the case and the significant issues that had come to light before it for this reason alone.
• We firmly believe that, given the totality of the circumstances and in the interests of justice, the investigation envisioned by the contested order should be permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion in this case, with the High Court's unjustified and superfluous observations disregarded so as to prevent any parties from being harmed solely as a result of those observations.

CONCLUSION

Everything was left up for investigation by the investigating agency, the sanctioning authority, and the relevant Court at the appropriate level and in line with the law. Given the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed but with the aforementioned observations and while ignoring the needless and inappropriate observations made by the High Court in the order in question.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE