Crl.R.C. No. 654 of 2022
Ganesan Vs Kirubasankar
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
1 July, 2022
Petitioner – Ganesan
Respondents – SHO, Kirubasankar
Justice. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
The application has been filed by the petitioner for further investigation after the commencement of the trial.
SECTION 173 OF Cr.P.C: It deals with the report of investigation by the police officer after the same is completed. The investigation has to be completed without any delay and has to be submitted in a prescribed manner to the magistrate who has cognizance.
- Whether the application made by the petitioner for further investigation is valid or not?
- Whether a further investigation be made after the investigation report is submitted to the magistrate?
- The accused here was claiming to obtain a job through false promises and has also obtained huge amount of money in various intervals and at various places.
- For the same the prosecutor did not collect the evidences of CCTV footage, CDR while investigationand also other few evidences that were required were also not furnished.
- The trial was by then initiated and thus the petitioners filed for an application so as to conduct investigation even after the trial has been commenced.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER
- The petitioner contended that the application was made with the instructions passed on by the police officer.
- The petitioner relying upon the judgement of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada vs State of Andhra Pradesh &Orsfor supporting his contentions as to the validity of application. The judgement put forth in the above case held that with the permission of the court the police officer can go ahead with further investigation even after submitting the report to the magistrate.
- The petitioner also relied upon the judgements made in Rama Chaudhary vs State of Bihar wherein it was held that the permission to be taken from the court for further investigation is not mandatory and it is the statutory right of the police to carryout investigation even after filing a charge sheet.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The respondents argued that the revision filed is not maintainable as it was not filed by the prosecution rather the de facto complainant.
- The respondent relied upon the judgement made in M.Viswanathanvs State and Ors wherein it was held that prosecution must seek the permission for further investigation and not the de facto complainant.
- The respondent further argued that the application was filed after the commencement of the trial. The same was relied upon the judgement made in Reetha Nag vs State of West Bengal & Ors said that such application cannot be directed by the magistrate and it does not have the jurisdiction foe the same.
- The court considered both the parties and relied upon the judgements put forth by the both parties and held that the application was filed by the petitioner. The court relied upon the judgement made in Rekha Murarkavs The State of West Bengal wherein it was held that such an application that is made just to bring in to the notice of the court are valid and de facto complainant here suggesting the same is also valid, but he cannot himself apply for the same. The court also held that here the prosecution was the one who applied and hence such an application made was valid.
- The second thing as to whether such an application or revision for re investigation be made the court considered the judgement made in Rama chaudary vs State of Bihar and held that such investigation can be made even after the commencement of trial.
- It also brought into light the judgement made in Hansabhai Valibhai vs State of Gujarat wherein it stated that when any defective investigation was made by and it is discovered during the trial then there can be re investigation to solve the same and the court’s permission must be taken.
- It is thus held that further investigation can be done after the commencement of the trial, though the same is not mentioned in the section 173 of CrPC but if there is any additional information that the police come across it shall be brought to the notice. The same is because no one shall be prosecuted for the wrong not done and the one who has committed shall not be escaped.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement