RAMACHANDRAN versus R. UDHAYAKUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 13-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
.• 
.; 
(2008] 8 S.C.R. 439 
RAM.AC HAN ORAN 
V. 
R. UDHAYAKUMAR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 173 and 482: 
A 
B 
Re-investigation of criminal case - Accused in a murder 
case filing application u/s. 482 Cr. PC. for transferring the case C 
to the Central Bureau of Investigation for re-investigation -
High Court directing to transfer the case to CB, CID for fresh 
investigation - Correctness of - Held: Incorrect - Diractions 
of the High Court for re-investigation are clearly indefensible 
- Though, further investigation instead of fresh investigation D 
could be done by CB, CID in terms of S. 173 (8) of the Code -
Directions issued. 
The question arose for determination in this criminal 
appeal was as to whether the High Court was right in di-
recting CB, CID to investigate the criminal case afresh in E 
terms of provisions u/s.173 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, 1973. 
Appellant contended that in an application under 
Section 482 Cr. P.C., the direction as given by the High 
F 
Court could not have been given; and that there was no 
scope for fresh or re-investigation in view of the provi-
sions under Section 173(8) of the Code. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From a plain reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C., 
it is evident that even after completion of investigation un-
der sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police 
has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not 
439 
G 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] p ·_'. c p 
A fresh investigation or re-investigation. (Para - 6) [443-8] 
. 
-
1.2 In view of the position of law as laid down by this 
Court in the case of K. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Kera/a 
and Ors., the directions of the High Court for re-investiga-
B 
tion or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. Hence, 
instead of fresh investigation, further investigation can 
be conducted, if required, under Section 173 (8) of the 
Code. The same can be done by the CB (Cm) as directed 
by the High Court. (Para - 7) [443-F] 
c 
K. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Kera/a and Ors. (1998) 5 
sec 223 - relied on. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 871 of 2008 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2006 of 
the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in Crl. OP. (MD) 
No. 9175/2006 
Siddarth Dave, Vijay Thakur and Senthil Jagadeesan for 
the Appellant. 
E 
K. Ramamoorthy, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu 
Ramasubramanian, A. Mariarputham, B.K. Prasad, P. 
Parmeswaran. B. Balaji, K. Mathu Ganesa Pandian and Satya 
Mitra Garg for the Respon~ents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on a petition 
G filed by respondent no.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). The prayer was to 
direct the respondent no.2 the State of Tamil Nadu represented 
by its Secretary, Government of Home Department to withdraw 
the litigation in Crime no.39/2004 on the file of Inspector of Po-
H lice, Palayanoor Police Station. Sivagangai District and to en-
RAMACHANDRAN v. R. UDHAYAKUMAR 
441 
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] 
-t 
trust the same to the file of Central Bureau of Investigation (in 
A 
short 'CBI'). They are respondent nos.5 and 6 in the present 
appeal. Respondent no.1 had filed the petition seeking for di-
.rection to re-investigate the case by the CBI in an allegeq case 
of murder by respondent no.1. There were totally 59 witnesses 
in the case. The High Court disposed of the petition, inter alia, 
B 
with the following directions: 
"8. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case 
in the interest of justice, the case in Crime No.39/2004 on 
the file of the fourth respondent stands transferred to the 
Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.l.D., Madurai who c 
shall entrust this case to a competent and efficient inspector 
of Police for the purpose of re-investigation in this case. 
The Inspector of Police who is nominated by the qeputy 
Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.l.D. Shall afresh 
investigate the matter and file the final report within a period 
Ll 
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 
order from this Court. The fourth respondent shall forthwith 
hand over the case records in crime Nb.39/2004 to the 
o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.