KISHAN LAL versus DHARMENDRA BAFNA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 21-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 234 
A 
KISHAN LAL 
v. 
DHARMENDRA BAFNA & ANR. 
, . 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2009) 
JULY 21, 2009 
' 
B 
[5.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.173(8) -
Jurisdiction of Magistrate - To direct further investigation -
c FIR lodged against ten accused - Chargesheet only against 
two of the accused - Magistrate taking cognizance of the 
matter d/recting further investigation at the instance of 
complainant - Revisional court setting aside_ order of 
Magistrate - On appeal, .held: Order of Magistrate for further 
D investigation not called for - Involvement of the left out 
accused in the offence could be made out from the material 
~ 
already brought on record. 
Appellant had filed a complaint against nine accused. 
E FIR was lodged against all the accused. Charge-sheet 
was filed only against two of the accused and cognizance 
was taken against them by the Magistrate. Appellant-
complainant filed petition uls 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting 
aside of the order of the Magistrate on the premise that 
... 
F 
cognizance was not taken against the other accused. 
...
ihe petition was disposed of stating that appellant was 
at liberty to file appropriate petition. Appellant filed an 
application before Magistrate, seeking investigation. 
Magistrate issued direction for further investigation. 
Revision application filed by respondent-accused No.2 
G was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Investigating Officer, when an FIR is 
H 
234 
KISHAN LAL v. DHARMENDRA BAFNA & ANR. 
235 
lodged in respect of a cognizable offence, upon 
A 
completion of the investigation, would file a police report. 
The power of investigation is a statutory one and 
ordinarily and save and except some exceptional 
situations, no interference therewith by any court is 
permissible. [Para 9] [242-D-E] 
B 
2. An order of further investigation can be made at 
various stages including the stage of the trial, that is, after 
taking cognizance of the offence. The Investigating 
Officer may exercise his statutory power of further 
investigation in several situations as, for example, when 
C 
new facts come to its notice; when certain aspects of the 
matter had not been considered by it and it found that 
further investigation is necessary to be carried out from 
a different angle(s) keeping in view the fact that new or 
D 
further materials came to its notice. Apart from the 
aforementioned grounds, the Magistrate or the Superior 
Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation 
is found to be tainted and/or otherwise unfair or is 
otherwise necessary in the ends of justice. [Paras 10 and 
11] (246-F-H; 248-A-C] 
E 
3. In the instant case, the matter has been 
investigated by two specialized agencies. The deponent 
of the counter affidavit categorically stated that he. had 
made a thorough investigation and upon consideration 
of the materials gathered during investigation identified 
that there was no connection between the money of the 
de facto complainant and Accused Nos. 3 to 10 and 
hence the final form was filed in their favour. [Para 12] 
[248-F-H; 249-A] 
F 
G 
4. It is correct that the revisional court should not 
interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by 
the Magistrate unless a jurisdictional error or an error of 
law is noticed. The order passed by the Magistrate that 
"several kinds of issues were not disclosed and beyond 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A from knots of doubts" is vague'in nature. It has not been 
pointed out that in what respect the investigation has not 
been carried out. What are hidden truths required to be 
unearthed had also not been pointed out. The Magistrate 
did not consider the fact that the investigation had been 
B carried out by ·two different agencies and by responsible 
police officers. It has not been found that the Investigating 
Officer was in any way biased towards the complainant. 
[Para 13] [250-G-H; 251-A-B] 
5. The question as to whether Accused Nos. 3 to 10 
C were involved in the matter could be pointed out from the 
materials which had already been brought on record. 
Furthermore, whether the admissions made in the 
. application for anticipatory bail were binding on them, the 
same being a matter of inference can also be urged. The 
D other and further remedies can be resorted to as also 
invocation of the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the 
stage of t

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