While dismissing the petition filed by a proposed accused seeking to quash the Magistrate’s order permitting further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, the Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) has held that the complainant has an unfettered right to seek further investigation and the Magistrate’s power survives until charges are framed. The Court clarified that a proposed accused, against whom no relief is directly sought in an application for further investigation, has no locus standi to intervene in such proceedings or to challenge the order passed thereon, as there is no question of violation of personal liberty at the stage of investigation.
The Court explained that a complainant, being the aggrieved person who brought the matter to the Court’s notice, has every right to draw the attention of the Court seeking further investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice and to unearth the truth, and Section 173(8) CrPC does not bar the complainant from moving such application. Further, the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) CrPC even after taking cognizance of the matter, and such power continues until charges are framed, since a criminal trial commences only upon framing of charge and not upon taking of cognizance.
On the question of locus of the proposed accused, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Abhay J. Mantri observed that a bare reading of Section 173(8) CrPC reveals no obligation on the Court to hear the accused or proposed accused before passing an order on further investigation, and there is no bar to the complainant filing such an application. It was further observed that giving an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused as a matter of course would frustrate the entire objective of an effective investigation.
On the question of the complainant’s locus and the Magistrate’s power, the Court reiterated that the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation ceases upon process being issued. A criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed, and the power of the police to further investigate continues till the stage the trial commences, subject to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) CrPC.
The Court further observed that the offence in question was of a serious nature, committed in a predetermined and preplanned manner, and that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth, punish the guilty, and protect the innocent. It was noted that the Petitioner’s own conduct in filing the intervention application and the present petition, in an attempt to obstruct the investigation, leads to an adverse inference, as a person genuinely unconnected with the alleged crime would have no anxiety or fear regarding a thorough investigation.
Briefly, the Petitioner, Sheetalkumar Sudhakar Manere, a businessman from Ichalkaranji, approached the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First-Class, by which he allowed an application filed by Respondent No. 2 / Complainant, Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, seeking further investigation in a crime registered at Hatkanangale Police Station, and directed the Police Inspector to appoint an Investigating Officer to investigate the participation of the Petitioner and one Mahesh Oza under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The factual backdrop is that Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against V.P. Singh and Ramesh Thakkar, alleging that they, in collusion with others, hatched a conspiracy, prepared forged documents, and demanded an extortion amount of Rs. 5 crores from him, along with threats to kill him, his family members, and his partner Nilesh Bagi. The Investigating Officer found that V.P. Singh, along with six others, was involved, and filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 381, 384, 386, 387, 120-B, 467, 468 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, followed by a supplementary charge-sheet.
During the investigation, statements of Mangesh Chavan, Milind Dongre, and Sachin Gorle were recorded, which pointed the finger of suspicion at the Petitioner and Mahesh Oza. The Investigating Officer moved an application seeking permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which was granted. A preliminary report was submitted stating that nothing had emerged against the Petitioner, while the investigation against Oza was ongoing.
Dissatisfied with the pace of investigation, Respondent No. 2 had sought appointment of a competent officer for further investigation, which the Investigating Officer supported by his reply. The Petitioner filed an intervention application, which was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that a proposed accused has no locus standi to argue such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
