Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Anirudh Bose observed that the High Court has inherent power under section 482 CRPC to order further investigation to investigation in a case where the court deems it appropriate.

The Supreme Court held that "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."

The Court further held that "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."

The Court further held that "Even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a case where a charge-sheet 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."

The Court also held that "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."

The Court also held that "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 investigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted."

Noting the facts, the court held that Respondent no.3, filed a petition under section 482 CRPC against the order dated 21.06.2014 passed by the ACJM, Barh, Patna whereby the Magistrate had taken cognizance against him u/s 409, 467, 468, 420 IPC for misappropriation of stocks from the godown of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. It was contended by him that District Manager who was responsible for the illegalities was given clean chit by the informant and Respondent no.3 is Class IV employee who could not have been posted at the godown and he was made a scapegoat to save the skin. The High Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the police to further investigate the case in terms of section 173(8) CRPC.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2022

DEVENDRA NATH SINGH ..……. APPELLANT(S)
 VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ……. RESPONDENT(S)

Read the Complete Judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/22814/22814_2019_8_1501_38898_Judgement_12-Oct-2022.pdf