BIKASH RANJAN ROUT versus STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY (HOME) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 16-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
BIKASH RANJAN ROUT
v.
STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY (HOME) GOVERNMENT
OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2019)
APRIL 16, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 173(8), 167(2), 227
and 228 – Powers of the Magistrate – Options available to the
magistrate at the time when report/challan/charge-sheet is filed by
investigating officer before him – On facts, the magistrate while
discharging the accused, also passed an order for further
investigation and directed the investigating officer to further
investigate in the matter and submit the report – Permissibility of –
Held: Magistrate cannot suo moto direct for further investigation u/
s. 173(8) or direct the re-investigation into a case at the post-
cognizance stage, when, in exercise of powers u/s. 227, the
Magistrate has discharged the accused – On facts, the investigating
authority did not apply for further investigation and that the
Magistrate suo moto passed an order for further investigation and
directed the investigating officer to further investigate and submit
the report, which is not permissible – Such course of action is beyond
the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate – Thus, the order
by the Magistrate ordering further investigation after he discharged
the accused, cannot be sustained and is set aside – Investigating
officer at liberty to file an appropriate application for
further investigation and submit a further report in exercise of
powers u/s. 173(8).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 After the investigation is concluded and the
report is forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section
173(2)(i) CrPC, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report
and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may
disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may
direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the
police to make a further report. If the Magistrate disagrees with
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 82
82
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
the report and drops the proceedings, the informant is required
to be given an opportunity to submit the protest application and
thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the informant, the
Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the
proceedings against the accused or not. If the Magistrate accepts
the objections, in that case, he may issue process and/or even
frame the charges against the accused. Having not satisfied with
the investigation on considering the report forwarded by the police
under Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, the Magistrate may, at that stage,
direct further investigation and require the police to make a
further report. However, it is required to be noted that all the
aforesaid is required to be done at the pre-cognizance stage. Once
the Magistrate takes the cognizance and, considering the
materials on record submitted along with the report forwarded
by the police under Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, Magistrate in
exercise of the powers under Section 227 CrPC discharges the
accused, thereafter, it will not be open for the Magistrate to suo
moto order for further investigation and direct the investigating
officer to submit the report. Such an order after discharging the
accused can be said to be made at the post-cognizance stage.
There is a distinction and/or difference between the pre-
cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage and the powers to
be exercised by the Magistrate for further investigation at the
pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage. The power to
order further investigation which may be available to the
Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage may not be available to
the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly,
when the accused is discharged by him. If the Magistrate was
not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating
officer and the report submitted by the investigating officer under
Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, it was always open/permissible for the
Magistrate to direct the investigating agency for further
investigation and may postpone even the framing of the charge
and/or taking any final decision on the report at that stage.
However, once the Magistrate, on the basis of the report and the
materials placed along with the report, discharges the accused,
the Court is afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto
order the further investigation by the investigating agency. Once
the order of disch

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.