Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Allegations of defalcation of goods and misappropriation of stocks from the godown of the Corporation – FIR was registered – Magistrate took cognizance of offences u/ss. 409, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC against respondent no.3 – Respondent no.3 filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC – High Court observed that an accused in the case ‘as scapegoat to save the skin’ of the present appellant – Having said so, the High Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the police to further investigate the case in terms of s.173(8) CrPC regarding the allegations against the appellant – On appeal, held: The person lodging the FIR with reference to the audit report, i.e., the Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager, made imputations only against the respondent No. 3, who was a class IV employee of the Corporation but was purportedly posted as an in-charge Assistant Godown Manager by the appellant, who was, at the relevant time, holding the position of the District Manager – Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that when all the relevant aspects were duly projected before the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent No. 3, the High Court could not have simply ignored the same only for the reasons that the informant omitted to state them while lodging the FIR, and/or the investigating officer overlooked them while submitting the result of 34 investigation, and/or the Magistrate did not pay requisite attention to them while taking cognizance – Instant case is a case of exceptional and special features where the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation, particularly qua the role of the appellant – Thus, the principal part of the order impugned, directing further investigation, calls for no interference – However, High Court was not justified in making such observations, comments, and remarks, which leave little scope for an independent investigation and which carry all the potential to cause prejudice to the appellant.
Dismissing the appeal, the court
HELD: 1. For what has been noticed various judgments of Supreme Court, this Court could reasonably cull out the principles for application to the present case as follows: (a) The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial. (b) The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms of Section
156 CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include the power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC after receiving the report of investigation. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate, which is to be exercised on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. (c) Even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a case where a chargesheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and is to be exercised subject to the limitations of Section 173(8) CrPC, in an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice. (d) Even when the wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC are recognised for ordering further investigation or reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in exceptional cases. (e) The powers under Section 482 CrPC are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted. [Para 13][721-G-H; 722-A-G]
2. Applying the principles aforesaid to the facts of the present case, what we find is that, in relation to the allegations of defalcation of goods and misappropriation of stocks from the godown of the Corporation, the person lodging the FIR with reference to the audit report, i.e., the Senior Dy. Collector-cumDistrict Manager, made imputations only against the respondent No. 3, who was a class IV employee of the Corporation but was purportedly posted as an in-charge Assistant Godown Manager by the appellant, who was, at the relevant time, holding the position of the District Manager. Though several features of the actions and omissions at the relevant time have been mentioned in the audit report, we do not propose to dilate on the same. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that when all the relevant aspects were duly projected before the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent No. 3, the High Court could not have simply ignored the same only for the reasons that the informant omitted to state them while lodging the FIR, and/or the investigating officer overlooked them while submitting the result of investigation, and/or the learned Magistrate did not pay requisite attention to them while taking cognizance. [Para 14][722-G-H; 723-A-C]
3. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present one had been such a case of exceptional and special features where the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation, particularly qua the role of the appellant. Thus, the principal part of the order impugned, directing further investigation, calls for no interference. [Para 14.1][723-D-E]
4. However, there are certain other aspects and features of the order impugned which are difficult to be appreciated and approved. The High Court has chosen to use such harsh and severe expressions in the impugned order which carry all the potential of causing prejudice to the appellant and even to distract a fair and dispassionate investigation. As noticed, the High Court has made its comments that the ‘entire game was played’ by the appellant who was holding the position of District Manager. The High Court has even stated that the appellant was ‘ultimately responsible for all such irregularities’. The High Court has gone to the extent of observing that the respondent No. 3 was made an accused in the case ‘as scapegoat to save the skin’ of the appellant. These and other akin observations in the order impugned lead to the position as if the High Court has already concluded on the result of investigation against the appellant. It is entirely a different matter to order further investigation on being prima facie satisfied about the requirement to do so in view of exceptional circumstances pertaining to a given case but, while doing so in exercise of inherent powers, the High Court has not been justified in making such observations and remarks which are likely to operate over and above the investigation and may cause prejudice to the appellant. As noticed, the principle remains settled that the High Court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle. [Para 15][723-E-G; 724-A-C]
5. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the given set of facts and circumstances, though the High Court has rightly exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC for directing further investigation but, has not been justified in making such observations, comments, and remarks, which leave little scope for an independent investigation and which carry all the potential to cause prejudice to the appellant. [Para 16][724-C-D] Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2014) 3 SCC 306 : [2013] 13 SCR 1052; Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3 SCR 668; Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 1 : [2019] 15 SCR 936; Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 30 : [2017] 12 SCR 222; Popular Muthiah v. State (2006) 7 SCC 296 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 100; Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4 SCR 701; Union of India and Anr. v. W.N. Chadha (1993) 4 Supp SCC 260 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 594; Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 517 : [2012] 8 SCR 1015; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 : [2012]
13 SCR 1005; State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 182 : [2011] 11 SCR 281; Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 777 : [2020] 6 SCR 1015 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.