SHARIFF AHMED & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 24-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 75 
SHARIFF AHMED & ORS. 
v. 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2009) 
APRIL 24, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
INVEST/GA TION - Interference with by Court- Direction 
A 
B 
by Metropolitan Magistrate to add s.307 /PC in the case and C 
then to investigate the matter - Upheld by High Court -
HELD: Order of Metropolitan Magistrate and judgment of 
High Court are unsustainable and are set aside. 
The instant appeal was filed challenging the D 
judgment of the High Court wherein it held that the 
course adopted by Judicial Magistrate directing the 
investigating officer to add s.307 IPC in the case and 
investigate the matter was permissible in law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
· HELD: The order of High Court is clearly 
unsustainable and is set aside. It is made clear that no 
opinion on merits of the case has been expressed. 
Though the charge-sheet for offence punishable u/s 307, 
F 
IPC has already been filed, but that was in compliance 
with court's order. It is open to the Investigating Officer 
to file the charge-sheet afresh on the basis ofthe material 
collected during investigation. [Para 8] [80·8-D] 
M. C. Aabraham and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and G 
Ors. JT 2002(10) SC 482, relied on. 
· S.M. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 3 SCR 946; 
State of Bihar and Anr. vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. (1980) 
75 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 
A 1 SCC 554 and Abhinandan Jha and Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra 
}.. 
AIR 1968 SC 117, referred to. 
King Empror vs. Khwaja Nazar Ahmad 1944 LRIA 203, 
referred to. 
B 
Case Law Reference : 
(1980) 1 sec 554 
referred to 
Para 3 
1970) 3 SCR 946 
referred to 
Para 3 
;. 
c 
AIR 1968 SC 117 
referred to 
Para 3 
1944 LRIA 203 
referred to 
Para 3 
JT 2002(10) SC 482 
relied on 
Para 3 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 865 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.02.2008 of the High 
Court of Delhi at in New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 428 of 2008. 
E 
Aman Mehta and Anurag Pandey for the Appellant. 
B.B. Singh, Sadhna Sandhu, Vikas Malhotra and Anil 
Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. A very short point of law is involved in this petition. The 
question is whether the court can direct that the Investigating 
G 
agency has to focus on any particular offence and do the 
investigation accordingly. In the instant case by order dated 
9.7.2007 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House 
\.-
directed the Investigating Officer to add Section 307 in the 
present case and investigate the matter properly. The said 
{ 
order was challenged before the High Court in Criminal M.C. 
' 
H 
SHARIFF AHMED & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 77 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-4 
No. 428/2008. The High Court held that the course adopted by A 
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was permissible in law. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 
view taken by the High Court is contrary to the law as settled 
by this court in a series of cases. Learned counsel for the State B 
submitted that the law in the point has been settled by a series 
of decision starting from 
State of Bihar and Anr. vs. J.A.C.Saldanha and Ors. 1980 
(1) SCC 554 Para 10 
c 
S.M. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari 1970 (3) SCR 946 
Para 12 
Abhinandan Jha & Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 
117) Para 16 
D 
• 
King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad 1944 LR IA 203 
Para 11; 
and One of the latest cases being MC.Abraham and Anr. 
vs. State of 
E 
Maharashtra and Ors; JT 2002 (10) SC 482 
In the said case, the contention before this Court 
was .that the High Court was in error in exercising 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the 
F 
stage when the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who 
had jurisdiction to entertain and try the case, had not 
passed upon the issues before him, by taking upon itself 
the appreciation of evidence involving facts about which 
there was an acrimonious dispute between the parties G 
and giving a clean bill to the suspects against whom the 
first information report was filed. 
In this connection this court relied upon the 
observations of the Privy Council in King Emperor vs. 
H 
78 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad: 1944 LR 71 IA 203, which reads 
thus:-
"In India, as has been shown. there is a statutory right on 
the part of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.