REETA NAG versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 13-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 276 
A 
REETA NAG 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(SLP (Crl.) No. 3062 of 2007) 
AUGUST 13, 2009 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
A 
c 
ss.173(2) and 173(8) rlw s.167(2) - Filing of report by 
investigating officer and propriety of order for reinvestigation! 
further investigation passed by Magistrate after taking 
cognizance and framing of charge - HELD: Once a report is 
' 
filed u/s 173(2) and either the charge is framed or the accused 
L,. 
D are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest t 
r
petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on 
the application made by the investigating authorities permit 
further investigation uls 173(8) - The Magistrate cannot uls 
173(8) suo motu direct a further investigation/re-investigation 
E 
into a case on account of the bar of s.167(2) - In the instant 
case, investigating authorities did not apply for further 
investigation and it was only upon the application filed by de 
facto complaint uls 173(8), that a direction was given by the 
Magistrate to re-investigate the matter - Having passed a final 
f-
order framing charge against six persons and discharging the 
F remaining accused persons, it was no longer within the 
Magistrate's jurisdiction to direct a re-investigation into the 
case - Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a re-
investigation on the application made by the de facto 
complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in 
G entertaining the said application - However, it will always be 
open to the Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of 
s.319 if any material is disclosed during the examination of A, 
the witnesses in the trial. 
H 
276 
..... 
REETA NAG v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 277 
Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981) 1 SCC 500; 
Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 
SC 1047; Sankatha Singh vs. State of UP. AIR 1962 SC 
1208; Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338; 
Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770; Randhir Singh 
Rana v. State (Delhi Administration (1997) 1 SCC 361, relied 
on. 
K.M. Mathew v. State of Kera/a (1992) 1 SCC 217, 
overruled. 
Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah & Ors. 
(1997) 7 sec 614 and State of Rajasthan V. Aruna Devi and 
& Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 1, cited. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1981) 1 sec 500 
relied on 
para 4 
(1997) 1 sec 614 
cited 
para 9 
(1995) 1 sec 1 
cited 
para 10 
(1997) 1 sec 361 
relied on 
para 13 
AIR 1966 SC 1047 
relied on 
para 15 
AIR 1962 SC 1028 
relied on 
para 15 
(2004) 1 sec 338 
relied on 
para 16 
(1992) 1 sec 211 
overruled 
para 16 
(2001) 8 sec 110 
relied on 
para 17 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Crl) No. 
3062 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2007 of the High 
Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 2318 of 2004. 
Jaideep Gupta, Raja Chatterjee, Arindam Mitra (for G.S. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Chatterjee) for the Petitioner. 
~ 
K.K. Venugopal, Ajay Kr. Jha, Divya Sinha, Goopal 
Sankaranarayanan (for Parekh & Co.), Tara Chandra Sharma, 
Neelam Sharma for the Respondents. 
8 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In this Special Leave Petition 
c we are called upon to decide whether after charge-sheet has 
been filed by the investigating agency under Section 173(2) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 
"Cr.P.C.", and charge has been framed against some of the 
accused on the basis thereof and the other co-accused have 
D been discharged, the Magistrate can direct the investigating 
,_ 
authorities to conduct a re-investigation or even further 
investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 
2. In the instant case, on the basis of a charge-sheet filed 
by the Investigating Officer, the Sub-Divisional Judicial 
E Magistrate, Asansol, West Bengal, on 9th July, 2004, took 
cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by six 
of the original sixteen accused persons under Sections 467/ 
I 
468/1208 of the Indian Penal Code. The other ten accused 
~ 
persons were discharged on the prayer of the Investigating 
F Officer. Subsequently, on 20th August, 2004, while considering 
an application filed by the de facto complainant, who is the 
petitioner before us, under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., praying for 
reinvestigation of the case, the learned Magistrate directed the 
Officer in-Charge, Asans
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.