VINAY TYAGI versus IRSHAD ALI @ DEEPAK & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 13 S.C.R. 1005 
VINAYTYAGI 
v. 
IRSHAD ALI @ DEEPAK & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2040-41 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 173 - Whether in exercise of its powers uls. 173, the trial c 
court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, 
where there are two reports by the same or different 
investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court 
and if so, to what effect - Held: The court of competent 
jurisdiction is duty bound to consider all reports, entire records 
0 
and documents submitted therewith by the Investigating 
Agency as its report in terms of s. 173(2) - This Rule is subject 
to only the following exceptions; (a) Where a specific order 
has been passed by the Magistrate at the request of the 
prosecution limited to exclude any document or statement or E 
any part thereof; (b) Where an order is passed by the higher 
courts in exercise of its extra-ordinary or inherent jurisdiction 
directing that any of the reports i.e. primary report, 
supplementary report or the report submitted on 'fresh 
investigation' or 're-investigation' or any part of it be excluded, 
struck off the court record and be treated as non est. 
F 
s. 173 - Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation 
(CBI) is empowered to conduct 'fresh/re-investigation' when 
the cognizance has already been taken by the Court of 
competent jurisdiction on the basis of a police report uls. 173 
G 
- Held: No investigating agency is empowered to conduct a 
'fresh', 'de novo' or 're-investigation' in relation to the offence 
for which it has already filed a report in terms of s. 173(2) - It 
is only upon the orders of the higher courts empowered to 
1005 
H 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A pass such orders that aforesaid investigation can be 
conducted, in which event the higher courts will have to pass 
a specific order with regard to the fate of the investigation 
already conducted and the report so filed before the court of 
the Magistrate. 
B 
The following questions arose for consideration of 
this Court in the present appeal:1) Whether in exercise 
of its powers under Section 173 CrPC, the Trial Court has 
the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where 
there are two reports by the same or different 
C investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a 
Court and if so, to what effect and 2) Whether the Central 
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is empowered to conduct 
'fresh'/'re-investigation' when the cognizance has already 
been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on the 
D basis of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The court of competent jurisdiction is duty 
E bound to consider all reports, entire records and 
documents submitted therewith by the Investigating 
Agency as its report in terms of Section 173(2) CrPC. This 
Rule is subject to only the following exceptions; (a) 
Where a specific order has been passed by the 
Magistrate at the request of the prosecution limited to 
F exclude any document or statement or any part thereof; 
(b) Where an order is passed by the higher courts in 
exercise of its extra-ordinary or inherent jurisdiction 
directing that any of the reports i.e. primary report, 
supplementary report or the report submitted on 'fresh 
G investigation' or 're-investigation' or any part of it be 
excluded, struck off the court record and be treated as 
non est. [Para 40) [1043-H; 1044-A-D] 
1.2. No investigating agency is empowered to 
H conduct a 'fresh', 'de novo' or 're-investigation' in relation 
.. 
VINAY TYAGI v. IRSHAD ALI @ DEEPAK & ORS. 1007 
to the offence for which it has already filed a report in 
A 
terms of Section 173(2) of CrPC. 
It is only upon the 
orders of the higher courts empowered to pass such 
orders that aforesaid investigation can be conducted, in 
which event the higher courts will have to pass a specific 
order with regard to the fate of the investigation already 
B 
conducted and the report so filed before the court of the 
magistrate. [Para 40] [1044-E-F] 
1.3. In the present case, report in terms of Section 
173(2) CrPC had already been filed by the Special Cell of C 
the Delhi Police even before the investigation was 
handed over to CBI to conduct preliminary inquiry. 
Furthermore, the final investigation on the basis of the 
preliminary report submitted by the CBI had also not been 
handed ove

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