DEVENDRA NATH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 12-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
DEVENDRA NATH SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2022)
OCTOBER 12, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Allegations of
defalcation of goods and misappropriation of stocks from the
godown of the Corporation – FIR was registered – Magistrate took
cognizance of offences u/ss. 409, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC against
respondent no.3 – Respondent no.3 filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC –
High Court observed that an accused in the case ‘as scapegoat to
save the skin’ of the present appellant – Having said so, the High
Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the
police to further investigate the case in terms of s.173(8) CrPC
regarding the allegations against the appellant – On appeal, held:
The person lodging the FIR with reference to the audit report, i.e.,
the Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager, made imputations
only against the respondent No. 3, who was a class IV employee of
the Corporation but was purportedly posted as an in-charge Assistant
Godown Manager by the appellant, who was, at the relevant time,
holding the position of the District Manager – Suffice it to observe
for the present purpose that when all the relevant aspects were duly
projected before the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent
No. 3, the High Court could not have simply ignored the same only
for the reasons that the informant omitted to state them while lodging
the FIR, and/or the investigating officer overlooked them while
submitting the result of 34 investigation, and/or the Magistrate did
not pay requisite attention to them while taking cognizance – Instant
case is a case of exceptional and special features where the High
Court was justified in ordering further investigation, particularly
qua the role of the appellant – Thus, the principal part of the order
impugned, directing further investigation, calls for no interference
– However, High Court was not justified in making such
observations, comments, and remarks, which leave little scope for
an independent investigation and which carry all the potential to
cause prejudice to the appellant.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 692
692
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
Dismissing the appeal, the court
HELD: 1. For what has been noticed various judgments of
Supreme Court, this Court could reasonably cull out the
principles for application to the present case as follows: (a) The
scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a
fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just
investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry,
whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that the
actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and the
innocents are not arraigned to stand trial. (b) The powers of the
Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms of Section
156 CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include the power
to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC
after receiving the report of investigation. Whether further
investigation should or should not be ordered is within the
discretion of the Magistrate, which is to be exercised on the facts
of each case and in accordance with law. (c) Even when the basic
power to direct further investigation in a case where a charge-
sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and is to be exercised
subject to the limitations of Section 173(8) CrPC, in an appropriate
case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in
the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts
of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482
CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even
reinvestigation. The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not
limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order
under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or
reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course
is necessary to secure the ends of justice. (d) Even when the
wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC are
recognised for ordering further investigation or reinvestigation,
such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection,
and in exceptional cases. (e) The powers under Section 482 CrPC
are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the
purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such
powers, the High Court cannot issue direction

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