Summary
A civil engineer who shared a post criticising a sitting Maharashtra Cabinet Minister alleged that policemen took him at night to the Minister's bungalow where he was beaten; the FIR omitted the Minister, who was charge-sheeted only in March 2022 after the Bombay High Court's intervention. The High Court refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI and held that no further investigation could be ordered once charges were framed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the victim's appeal: transfer to the CBI, reserved for rare and exceptional cases, was rightly refused, but under Dharam Pal and Bharati Tamang constitutional courts may order further or de novo investigation even after charge-sheet and framing of charge, the victim having a fundamental right to a fair investigation; with the State conceding gaps, its agency was directed to further investigate FIR No. 120 of 2020.
Issues
- Whether the investigation into FIRs alleging abduction and assault of the complainant at the instance of a sitting State Minister should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
- Whether a constitutional court can order further investigation, re-investigation or de novo investigation after the charge-sheet has been filed and charges framed by the trial court.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32, 226 and 21, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and Himanshu Kumar, transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases; but under Dharam Pal and Bharati Tamang the constitutional courts' power to order fresh, de novo or further investigation to secure a fair investigation, which Article 21 demands, is not barred by commencement of the trial. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 11)
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya concerned the Magistrate's power to order further investigation until the trial commences, and Rama Chaudhary the police's right to further but not fresh investigation; neither considered the powers of the constitutional courts and neither restricts them. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Held
- No case was made out for transfer to the CBI and the appellant's counsel did not seriously press that prayer; the High Court's refusal on that point is affirmed. (¶¶ 7.4, 14)
- If the mere filing of a charge-sheet and framing of charges barred further or de novo investigation, an accused could see to it that charges are framed in order to avoid a fair investigation and trial, which would be a travesty of justice; the stage of the case is not the governing factor where facts warrant further investigation. (¶¶ 11, 12.3)
- The Minister was named in the FIR yet omitted from the first and supplementary charge-sheets and examined as a witness, material such as call records and mobile phones was gathered only after the High Court's interim orders, and the Minister was charge-sheeted only after charges against the others had been framed; the State now concedes that further investigation is required on aspects it has not disclosed for fear of frustrating it. The change in the State's stand after a change in government is immaterial because the court's only concern is a fair investigation and trial. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; Bombay High Court judgment dated 26.04.2022 in WP No. 411 of 2021 confirmed insofar as it refused transfer of FIR No. 120 of 2020 to the CBI, but set aside insofar as it refused further investigation; the State investigating agency permitted to further investigate FIR No. 120 of 2020 on aspects left to its wisdom, preferably within three months, and to place the supplementary report before the trial court for consideration on its merits.