LAWS(SC)-1996-12-74

RANDHIR SINGH RANA Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Decided On December 20, 1996
RANDHIR SINGH RANA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A peep into a little grey area of the criminal law has become necessary in this appeal, as we have been called upon to decide as to whether a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order of his own further investigation in the case. That such a power is available to police after submission of charge-sheet is no longer a debatable question in view of sub-section (8) of section 173 (in Chapter XII:Information to Police and their Powers to Investigate) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). It is also not in dispute that before taking of cognizance under section 190 (Part of Chapter XIV:Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings), the Magistrate may himself order investigation, as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 156 of the Code. Further, in exercise of power under section 311 finding place in Chapter XXIV (General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials), the Court may at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. But in the present appeal the learned Magistrate ordered for further investigation after the appellant had made his appearance and the case was otherwise ready for considering the question whether charge should be framed or appellant should be discharged.

(2.) There having been no direct authority of this Court on the question, it was required to be examined as a matter of first principle, with the assistance of some related decisions of this Court and that of the High Courts on the issue at hand. In view of the importance of the point, we had requested Shri Sudhir Walia, a panel Advocate of the State of Punjab, to assist us as amicus curiae and he did so admirably. After the conclusion of the hearing, written submissions had also been filed on behalf of the respondent-Delhi Administration, which too we have perused.

(3.) Coming to the decision of this Court, reference may first be made to Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, (1967) 3 SCR 668 in which it was held that even where on perusal of the police report to the effect that no case has been made out for sending up an accused for trial, it is not open to the Magistrate, despite his having certain supervisory powers in this regard, to direct the police to file a charge-sheet because that would amount to encroaching on the sphere of police. As in the present case the direction is not to file charge-sheet, what was stated by the two-Judge Bench has no direct application and cannot assist the appellant.