Re-investigation of case permissible..??
nirmalsingh
(Querist) 02 June 2015
This query is : Resolved
I have conducted an investigation of a case u/s 409, 166,418,201 IPC being a member of SIT under the chairmanship of ADGP Rank officer . after completion of challan complete record was sent to ADGP/Crime for further put up before DGP for prosecution sanction. The case for prosecution sanction was never put up before DGP who is competent authority to grant prosecution sanction and case file remain pending for 11 months with DIG investigation in the crime wing. with the approval of ADGP crime the IGP investigation in the crime wing passed an order for re-investigation of case without giving any reason,without putting up before DGP and entrusted the investigation to SP rank officer assisted by a DSP AND Inspector /Crime wing who is much junior to ADGP.please advice me whether at the stage of prosecution sanction case can be re investigated when there is a strong evidence in the challan u/s 173 Cr.PC against the accused and if put up for trial he will definitely be convicted...The accused CLERK is a very influential person, posted with senior police officer as his PA...pl give me strong authority of S.C and H.C.
P. Venu
(Expert) 03 June 2015
This query was raised earlier (in a different version) and extensively replied. As already explained, no permission in terms of CrPC 197 is required if the clerk involved is not a member of the Police Force.
nirmalsingh
(Querist) 03 June 2015
I am continuously seeking your advice since July 2013 on this matter, now the final position is that the DGP has ordered Re investigation without giving any reason, because the accused used his influence so that cancellation report in this case be filed, he never disagree with the investigation.the sole purpose is to protect the accused, Case for Prosecution sanction was sent because DA Prosecution advice us on the checking memo of the challan...
praveen tiwari
(Expert) 04 June 2015
re investigation is not defined in cr. p.c . further investigation may be done according to 173(8)cr p c
but without any resonable reason it can not perform.
nirmalsingh
(Querist) 05 June 2015
Re-Investigation was ordered just to protect the accused,if the new I.O says that no offence is made out against the accused then it means I have fabricated the record to procure conviction of the accused what the Judgement in Vineet Narayan says..in this regard..?
nirmalsingh
(Querist) 08 June 2015
In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, [2009 (5) SCC 366], it was held:
"9. The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police.
Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible.
10. From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of police report under Sub- section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is additional; more; or supplemental.
"Further" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 June 2015
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 173 (8) - reinvestigation - Power of police to conduct further investigation, even after laying final report, is recognised under section 173 (8) of Cr P;Sri BSSVVV Maharaj v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 Cr LJ 3661 (SC)
If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the
interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
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).
