CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 07-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 1002 
CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES 
v. 
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.866 of 2015) 
JULY 07, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73: s. 173(8) - Power 
c of Magistrate to forward the complaint for further investigation 
- Magistrate had held that the Inspector, Crime branch had 
conducted investigation in a biased manner and the final 
report of the Inspector was not acceptable and directed the 
Additional Director General of Police to confer the power to 
D Inspector, CBCID to investigate the case - High Court held 
that there were material discrepancies in the evidence 
brought on record and, therefore, set aside the order of 
Magistrate - On appeal, held: High Court fell into error in its 
appreciation of the order passed by the Magistrate -
The 
E order, in fact, presents that the Magistrate was actually 
inclined to direct further investigation but because he chose 
another agency, he used the word "reinvestigation" -
Therefore, that part of the order is set aside and it is directed 
that the investigating agency that had investigated shall carry 
F on the further investigation and such investigation shall be 
supervised by the concerned Superintendent of Police -After 
the further investigation, the report shall be submitted before 
the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall deal with the same 
G in accordance with law- Investigation. 
H 
Jurisdiction: Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Single Judge has dwelled upon in 
1002 
CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES v. STATE THROUGH 
1003 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
great detail on the statements of the witnesses to arrive A 
at the conclusion that there are remarkable 
discrepancies with regard to the facts and there is 
nothing wrong with the investigation. In fact, he has 
noted certain facts and deduced certain conclusions, 
which, are beyond the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. B 
It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional 
jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a 
revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question 
of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, 
then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in C 
a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to 
be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse 
of power by the Court. The High Court has adverted to 
the facts not to see the perversity of approach, or to see 0 
that justice is done, but analysed it from an angle as if it 
is exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the 
High Court's conclusion with regard to the factual score 
is unsustalnable. [Paras 12 and 13) [1009-G-H; 1010-A-
~ 
E 
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander 2012 (7) SCR 988 : 
(2012) 9 sec 460 - relied on. 
2. A Magistrate can disagree with the police report 
and take cognizance and issue process and summons F 
to the accused. Thus, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction 
to ignore the opinion expressed by the investigating 
officer and independently apply his mind to the facts 
that have emerged from the investigation. The High Court 
fell into error in its appreciation of the order pass.ed by G 
the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate could not 
have di.rected another investigating agency to 
Investigate as that would not be within the sphere of 
further investigation and, in any case, he does not have H 
the jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation by another 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A agency. [Paras 16, 19, 21] [1012-G; 1018-A-B; 1019-G] 
Hasanbhai Valibhai Quareshi vs State of Gujarat am:j 
Ors. 2004 (3) SCR 762: (2004) 5 sec 347; Hemant 
Dhasmana vs CBI and Anr. 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646: 
B 
(2001) 7 sec 536; Sonalai Soni VS State of Chattisgam 
and Ors. 2005 Crl. L.J.4461; Chattishgarh); Uma 
Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar 2010 (10) SCR 1132: 
(2010) 9 SCC 479; Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash 
2013 (6) SCR 496: (2013) 9 SCC 199; Dharam Pal v. 
C 
State of Haryana (2014) 3 SCC 306; Kishun Singh v. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
State of Bihar 1993 (1) SCR 31: (1993) 2 sec 16; 
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police 1985 (3) SCR 
942: (1985)2SCC537; VinayTyagiv. lrshadAli2012 
(13) SCR 1005: (2013) 5 sec 762- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2004 (3) SCR 762 
Referred to. 
Para5 
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646 
Referred to. 
Para 5 
2005 Crl. L.J.4461 (Chattishgarh) Referred to. 
Para 7 
2012 (7) SCR 988 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
2010
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.