Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of proceedings – Non-exercise of power u/s. 482 – Justification of – Appellant charged u/s. 420 along with the other accused persons for cheating the de-facto complainant and other persons for certain sum in exchange for securing jobs – Registration of FIR – Final report that as no proper evidence, case should be considered as a false case – Another final report filed which stated that Inspector of Police conducted further investigation as per order passed by District Police Chief – Petition for quashing of the proceedings – Petition not quashed – On appeal, held: No material on record to show that the representation made by accused No.1, the appellant or the de facto complainant, was false or that they had prior knowledge of such representation being false and made only with the intention to deceive – Only ingredient was that in the ordinary course, none of the persons would have given the accused any money, and thus, were induced to deliver property which otherwise they would have not – With only one ingredient being fulfilled and mere statements made to show dishonest intention or falsity of statement, the threshold of s. 420 is not breached, constituting the offence – Thus, the non-exercise of the power u/s. 482 not justified – Order passed by the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s.
420. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 173(8) – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – District Police Chief ordered the further investigation pursuant to which the second final report filed – Permissibility of – Held: Magistrate has the power to order further investigation – Fresh investigation/re-investigation/de novo investigation fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of a higher court – Order from the District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the concerned Magistrate – Thus, the District Police Chief could not have ordered further investigation, as that power rests either with the magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency.
Investigation: Further investigation and fresh investigation/re-investigation/de novo investigation – Difference between – Explained – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 : [2012] 13 SCR 1005; T.T Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC
181 : [2001] 3 SCR 942; Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors v. State of Gujarat 2019 SCC OnLine 1346; Randhir Singh Rana v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1997) 1 SCC 361 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 880; G.V Rao v. L.H.V Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 : [2000] 2 SCR 123; Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha (1973) 2 SCC 823; Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC
359 : [2006] 3 SCR 1086; Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI (2001) 7 SCC 536 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 646; Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 48; Paramjit Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 13 SCC 673; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine 315; Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 124 – 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.