Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order directing further investigation in a 2013 murder trial at the instance of the deceased's wife after final arguments had concluded, holding that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC needs a reasonable basis and cannot be a roving enquiry, that the application rehashed grounds already rejected under Section 311, and that the High Court gave no reasons; the additional chargesheet was not to be taken on record and the trial was to conclude within eight weeks.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified, on the facts, in directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC after the evidence and final arguments had concluded.
- Whether the application for further investigation was a disguised attempt to reopen the rejected application under Section 311 CrPC.
- Whether the additional chargesheet prepared pursuant to the High Court's order could be taken on record.
Provisions considered
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Permits further investigation after a police report; held to be a significant power to be used sparingly, in exceptional cases, on a reasonable basis, and not for a fishing or roving enquiry. (¶¶ 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37)
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The wife's earlier application to summon the same eyewitnesses had been dismissed by the trial court and the High Court; the later application for further investigation rehashed those grounds. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 37, 42, 43)
- Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court ordered further investigation in revisional jurisdiction; whether further investigation could be ordered after the commencement of trial was left open as the order failed on merits. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noted that the High Court may direct further investigation or reinvestigation under its inherent powers in an appropriate case, but only fairly, with circumspection and in exceptional cases. (¶ 35)
Held
- Whether further investigation is needed depends on an evaluation of the facts and attendant circumstances; it may be warranted where fresh material comes to light, and the filing of a chargesheet or the pendency of trial is not by itself a bar. (¶¶ 32, 33, 36)
- Further investigation cannot be permitted as a fishing or roving enquiry after a chargesheet has been filed; there must be a reasonable basis for the court to be satisfied that the ends of justice require it, and the power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
- The direction was unwarranted: the application came over six years after the chargesheet, at the end of trial after arguments, from a witness who had said nothing of these matters in her deposition, and it repeated the grounds of her Section 311 application already rejected by the trial court and the High Court. (¶ 37)
- The High Court recorded no reasons and applied none of the relevant legal principles; it also misread its earlier Section 311 order, which had rested on other grounds and not only on the absence of a prayer for further investigation. (¶ 37)
- The trial court's view that further investigation can never be ordered after cognizance was described as erroneous, though the trial court's dismissal was upheld on its other reasons; the jurisdictional question whether further investigation may be ordered after trial begins was left undecided. (¶¶ 31, 37)
- The additional chargesheet, which mainly restated motive and introduced witnesses not named earlier, could not be taken on record; the State, which had opposed the applications below, gave no tenable justification for supporting further investigation in this Court. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Delay may yield to the pursuit of truth only where genuine grounds exist; courts must be vigilant to stop unjustified attempts to delay proceedings, and frivolous or vexatious proceedings, including in family law matters, should attract exemplary costs. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order dated 30.04.2021 set aside and the application for further investigation dismissed; the additional chargesheet dated 02.12.2021 not to be taken on record; the trial court to hear arguments afresh and pronounce judgment within eight weeks.