Magistrates can order further investigation even after a Chargesheet has been filed

Asmita Kuvalekar | Government Law College, Mumbai | 17^th April 2020

VINUBHAI HARIBHAI MALAVIYA AND ORS V THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR (CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS 478-479 OF 2017) 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The appellant challenges the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), claiming that there is no provision to order further investigation once the offence has been recognized. 

In this judgement, the Supreme Court examines the nature and amplitude of the Magistrate’s powers under the abovementioned Section. In doing so, it also explains the legislative intent and purpose behind it.

ISSUE: 

1. After filing of a chargesheet by the police, can a Magistrate direct further investigation into the matter?
2. If the Magistrate is empowered to do so, up to what stage of the criminal proceeding can this power be used? 

JUDGEMENT: 

Harking back to the Forty-First Law Commission Report of 1898, the Apex Court promptly highlighted the reasoning behind recommendation of sub-Section 8 to Section 173 of the Code. This provision allows the police to reopen a closed investigation on the basis of new evidence or comparative circumstances arising after filing the report. On a bare perusal thereof, it is clear that in the interest of a fair and just trial, the Legislature intended flexibility and discretion in the working of a Magistrate. No investigation can be said to be complete simply because it is wrapped up quickly and is in line with the goal of a speedy trial. As much as a speedy trial is a human and fundamental right under Article 21, so is the right to a free, fair and just trial. The two are not mutually exclusive so as to allow one to be upheld and the other to be ignored. 

Further, incomplete investigations can create operative hurdles for both the prosecution as well as the defence and it can severely impede the Court’s understanding of the case. This can then lead to miscarriage of justice. Such rigidity in the application of the impugned CrPC provision can only cause hindrance for the investigating agency, compelling it to start another investigation despite material facts of the case remaining the same. Such a narrow-minded approach which has been taken by Courts in India for a long time has resulted in unnecessary time being lost. 

Thus, the judges were unanimously of the opinion that rushing to a trial without full and proper investigation can prove to be counter-productive and goes against the very ethos of liberty and life envisaged by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

In consequence, as answer to the principal question of the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation even after the police report has been filed, the Court favoured a liberal approach and held that the Magistrate can do so. It cited the seminal decision given in State of Bihar v J.A.C Saldhana and Ors¹. In this case, it was held that the Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation is independent in nature. It is discretionary and crucial for fulfilling the aim of Article 21. It is therefore open to the Magistrate to refute the Investigating Officer’s conclusions and direct him to investigate further. 

Section 156 (3) as explained in Dilawar Singh v State of Delhi², affords a wide decision-making field for the Magistrate. He can either accept or refute the police report. Moreover, a person aggrieved by the manner in which investigation is taking place can approach the Magistrate for relief and the Magistrate is empowered to handle such a situation as he deems fit. As such, it quickly becomes evident that Section 156 (3) is not an inflexible legal anomaly but rather a provision that allows the Magistrate to fully utilize his discretion so as to meet the Constitutional objectives of a proper legal proceeding that respects both parties’ rights equally. 

Furthermore, the Court underlined the Magistrate’s prerogative to supervise an investigation if he is of the opinion that it is not satisfactory. This power also includes in itself the power to order registration of an FIR as well as all incidental powers necessary for a comprehensive and proper investigation. 

Lastly, the Apex Court clarified that the Magistrate’s power as envisioned under Section 156 (3) and as enumerated in this judgement, is valid for all stages of a criminal proceeding until the trial begins. The definition of investigation under Section 2(h) of the Code covers all acts of a police officer seeking and collecting evidence. Section 151 on which 156 (3) is based, mentions ‘investigation’. This word is to be taken to hold the meaning given to it under 2(h). It follows that, until the trial, irrespective of a report being filed, further examination directed by the Magistrate is possible and legally tenable. 

1. (1980) 1 SCC 554
2. (2007) 12 SCC 641