... Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
& ORS.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2.
In
this
appeal,
by
special
leave,
the
Procedure
(CrPC)
and
also
directing
the
some others attacked him with Vettu Kathi, knife and iron
rod and in the said attack he sustained multiple injuries.
The motive behind the assault, as per the FIR, was due to
business rivalry that existed between the appellant and
Manikandan, as both are contractors. The Inspector of
Police, Kulasekaram Police Station conducted the initial
investigation and subsequently the case was transferred to
the
District
Crime
Branch
Police,
Kanyakumari
and
there
was
no
justification
for
directing
and
Ors.3,
and
Hasanbhai
Valibhai
the
resultantly
complaint
by
order
for
dated
further
investigation
02.09.2010
directed
and
the
investigation,
but
has
used
the
expression
In fact, he has
Normally, a
Presently
to
the
thrust
of
the
matter,
the
10
11
The
principle stated by the two-Judge Bench reads as follows:19. even if the investigating authority is of the
view that no case has been made out against an
accused, the Magistrate can apply his mind
independently to the materials contained in the
police report and take cognizance thereupon in
exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b)
CrPC.
The said principle was followed by another two-Judge
Bench in Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash6.
15.
In
Dharam
Pal
v.
State
of
Haryana7,
the
12
with the facet of law where the Magistrate disagrees with the
report and on applying his independent mind feels there has
to be a further investigation and under that circumstance
what he is precisely required to do. In this regard, we may
13
14
15
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali10, has opined thus:37. In some judgments of this Court, a view has
been advanced, [amongst others in Reeta Nag v.
State of W.B11, Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of
Jharkhand12 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State
(Delhi Admn.)13] that a Magistrate cannot suo
motu direct further investigation under Section
173(8) of the Code or direct reinvestigation into a
case on account of the bar contained in Section
167(2) of the Code, and that a Magistrate could
direct filing of a charge-sheet where the police
submits a report that no case had been made out
for sending up an accused for trial. The gist of
the view taken in these cases is that a Magistrate
cannot direct reinvestigation and cannot suo
motu direct further investigation.
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19.
are disposed to think that the High Court has fallen into
error in its appreciation of the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has to be construed in the light
of the eventual direction. The order, in fact, as we perceive,
presents that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was
really inclined to direct further investigation but because he
had chosen another agency, he has used the word
reinvestigation.
19
20.
20
21.
21
............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
............................J.
[V. Gopala Gowda]
New Delhi
July 7, 2015