HASANBHAI VALIBHAI QUERESHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HASANBHAI VALIBHAI QUERESHI 
• 
A 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Ss. 17 3(8)-Furlher inwstigation-lnvestigation stated lo be defective-
c 
Prosecution agency slated to be tainted with suspicion and visible leaning in 
favour of accused-Prosecution resisting fi1rther investigation on the ground 
that it would delay process of trial-Held, hands of investigating agency or 
the court should not be tied down on the ground that fi1rther investigation may 
delay the trial-De hors any direction from court, ii is open to police to 
conduct proper investigation even after court took cognizance of any offence 
D on strength of a police report earlier submitled. 
S. 216-Addition to or alteration of charge-FIR-Prosecution agency 
stated to have wrongly deleted certain sections of !PC ji-om FIR-Held, during 
) 
trial the court, in appropriate case, is empowered to add or alter a charge as 
the exigencies of the case warrant. 
E 
Appellant-complainant filed a writ petition in the High Court stating 
that shops of the persons belonging to his community were looted and set 
ablaze by persons of another community. It was stated that initially in the 
FIR various offences including under ss. 395 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 
1860 were mentioned, but later sections 395 and 120-B !PC were deleted 
F from the FIR, as a result of which the accused managed to get bail. It was 
~ 
prayed that directions be issued for investigation by an independent 
)\ 
agency. 
The High Court declined to interfere holding that for further 
investigation, if found necessary, the remedy was available in the Code of 
G Criminal Procedure and the same could be carried out under the 
supervision of the trial court, for which the complainant could take 
appropriate steps. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal. 
)r 
It was contended for the appellant that the role of the prosecution 
agency from the beginning was tainted with suspicion and visible leaning 
H 
762 
H.V. QUERESHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
763 
in favour of the accused persons; that there was no urgency to seek deletion A 
of ss.395 and 120-B IPC without full and complete investigation; and that 
the complainant could approach the trial court was no reason to gloss over 
partisan approach and attitude of the prosecution agency. 
On the directions of the Court, the l)irector General of Police 
submitted a report stating that the trial court had framed charges against B 
three accused u/s 120-B IPC. As regards desirability of further 
investigation, it was stated that since the Session case was fixed for day to 
day hearing, direction for further investigation would prove infructuous 
and would only delay process of trial. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: I.I. The hands of the investigating agency or the court should 
not be tied down on the ground that further investigation may delay the 
trial, as the ultimate object is to arrive at the truth and do real and 
substantive as well as effective justice. Sub-s.(8) of s.173 of the Code of D 
Criminal Procedure,1973 permits further investigation, and even dehors 
any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct 
proper investigation, even after the court took cognizance of any offence 
on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if, as 
in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of 
the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. E 
1767-B-CI 
1.2. When defective investigation comes to light during the course 
of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so 
permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in the 
instant case that police should inform the court and seek formal permission F 
to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead· of 
being silent over the matter keeping in view onlY. the need for an early 
trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during the 
course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary 
as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. Therefore, if there G 
is necessity for further investigation.the same can certainly be done as 
prescribed by law. 1767-D-FI 
Om Prakash Narang and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.). AIR (1979) SC 
1791, relied on. 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2

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