Hardev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 January, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hardev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421




CRM-M-1684-2025                                                         1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

134                              CRM-M-1684-2025
                                 Date of decision: 15th January, 2025

Hardev Singh
                                                                   ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                               ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:     Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                   ***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing

of order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in case arising out of FIR No. 21

dated 06.03.2018 registered under Sections 381 read with Section 34 of IPC

at Police Station Phase 11, SAS Nagar (Mohali) as well as the judgment

dated 24.07.2024 passed by the revisional Court i.e. the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, thereby dismissing the revision

petition filed against the order dated 12.09.2023.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of

this petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis

of a complaint lodged by the petitioner Hardev Singh i.e. complainant on

1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:36 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 2-

06.03.2018 alleging therein that he had employed respondent No.-7 Baljeet

Kaur for taking care of his aged mother and for doing household chores in

his house. The respondent No.8, who is younger sister of respondent No.7

also used to come with the latter from the last few months and used to help

respondent No.7 in her work. Sometimes, they used to stay at his house till

late, if the complainant had to leave his house to attend some functions. On

12.12.2017, the respondents No.7 and 8 took the keys of cupboards from the

purse of his aged mother in his absence. The complainant questioned the

respondents No. 7 and 8 and then it was disclosed that, they had been

commiting theft of money from his house whenever they found opportunity.

He alleged that theft of an amount of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- had been

committed by them as disclosed and they assured to return the same. On

14.12.2017, they returned an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- while promising to

pay rest of the money soon. However, they failed to return the same

subsequently. After registration of FIR under Section 381 read with Section

34 of IPC, investigation proceedings were initiated. The respondents No. 7

and 8 were arrested and subsequently, they were granted benefit of bail.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented as against them and

presently, they are facing trial for commission of offence punishable under

Section 381 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The petitioner-complainant moved an application before the

learned trial Court making prayer for conducting further investigation in the

matter by submitting that from the allegations levelled in the complaint filed

by him, a case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 201,

206, 451 and 454 had also been made out apart from offence under Section

2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 3-

381 of IPC. However, neither FIR under those Sections has been lodged nor

these Sections were subsequently added. Respondents No. 7 and 8 were not

challaned under the aforementioned Sections and challan was presented only

under Section 381 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is submitted that he had

moved several complaints/applications with the police authorities for adding

these Sections and conducting further investigation but to no avail.

4. Status report had been filed by the respondent-State. After

hearing arguments in the said application, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12.09.2023 dismissed the application by

observing that no case for conducting further investigation/re-investigation

was made out.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which

as discussed above had been dismissed by the revisional Court vide order

dated 24.07.2024. It was observed by learned revisional Court that petitioner

being complainant could not dictate to the investigating agency the mode

and manner of conducting the investigation and no glaring misconduct on

the part of investigating agency, which could impel the Court to order

further investigation was made out.

6. Being dissatisfied by the aforementioned orders, the present

petition is filed.

7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they are not sustainable in the

eyes of law. While passing the same, the learned Courts below ignored the

fact that the police had not conducted proper investigation in the matter.

There was sufficient material on record to show that respondents No. 7 and 8

3 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 4-

had committed theft of huge amount of money from the house of the

petitioner. The allegations in the FIR clearly made out a case for commission

of offences punishable under Sections 201, 206, 401 and 454 of IPC, since

the petitioner had produced material on record to show that the respondents

had been depositing money in their bank accounts, the respondent No.7 had

spent money on the marriage of her daughter, a plot had been purchased by

respondent No. 8 and they had also purchased a vehicle in their name,

besides spending money on renovation of their house and purchased modern

gadgets as well as jwellery. It is submitted that proper investigation was not

conducted by the Investigating Agency. Investigation conducted was biased.

With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be

allowed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance upon judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Criminal Complaint No. 562 of 2024 arising out of SLP

(Criminal) No. 11685 of 2022 titled as ‘XXX Vs. The State represented

through the Inspector of Police and another.’

8. Learned State counsel who has advance notice of the petition

and submits that the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as

revisional Court are well reasoned and do not warrant any interference.

Accordingly, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and have gone through the record carefully.

10. Keeping in view the contentions as raised by both the sides, the

question of law that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether,

the petitioner could ask for conducting further investigation in the matter

4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 5-

irrespective of the fact that a charge sheet had already been submitted in the

aforementioned FIR and even charge under Section 381 of IPC has been

framed as against the respondents.

11. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to provisions of

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which pari materia with

Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which

describes the steps to be taken by the Investigating Officer after completion

of investigation. As per this Section, Officer incharge of the concerned

police station is required to forward a report under the said Section to the

Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence in prescribed form

after completion of investigation. Then Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. deals with

further investigation and supplementary report. This provision may be

fragmented or dissected as under:-

(i) Further investigation can be done in respect of an offence

wherein report under Section 173 (2) has been forwarded to the

Magistrate; and

(ii) During further investigation, the officer in-charge has power

to obtain further evidence, oral or documentary and to forward

to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such

evidence in the form prescribed.

12. So far as the term ‘further investigation’ is concerned, its

meaning has been described by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Chaudhary

v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346, wherein it was observed that

further investigation within the meaning of provision of Section 173 (8)

Cr.P.C. is additional, more, or supplemental. ‘Further investigation’,

5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 6-

therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh

investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier

investigation altogether.

13. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and others

reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347, it was observed that the prime consideration

for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real substantial

justice. The hands of investigating agency for further investigation should

not be tied down on the grounds of mere delay.

14. So far as the power of police to conduct further investigation is

concerned, in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata

Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. and others reported in (1999) 5

SCC 740, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that power of police to

conduct further investigation, after laying final report is recognized under

Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. Even after the Court took cognizance of any

offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the

police to conduct further investigation. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S.

Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme

Court that carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the

charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police and the law even does not

mandate the taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further

investigation. In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others

reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762, it was observed that ‘further investigation’ in

terms of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. can be made in a situation where the

investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the

final report has been filed before the Court. A Magistrate has power to direct

6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 7-

‘further investigation’ after filing of a police report. In Bohatie Devi (Dead)

through LRs v. State of U.P., AIRONLINE 2023 SC 362, the Apex Court

has recognized the rights of the Investigating Officer to further investigate in

respect of the offence, even after a report under Section 173 (2) of the Code

was forwarded to the Magistrate and it was held that no prior approval of the

Magistrate is required before taking up the further investigation. In State

through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendra Reddy and another,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 515, the Apex Court has held as under:-

“83. We may summarise our final conclusion as under:

(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is
accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out
further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against
conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after
the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been
accepted.

(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of
the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report
should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.

15. In Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat reported in

(2019) 17 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate has

power to direct ‘further investigation’ after filing of a police report in terms

of Section 173 (2) & (6) of the Code. Whether further investigation should

or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate

who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance

with law. It was also clarified that the investigation spoken of in Section 156

(3) of the Code would embrace the entire process, which begins with the

collection of evidence and continues until charges are framed by the Court,

7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 8-

at which stage the trial can be said to have begun.

16. In K. Vadivel vs K. Shanthi and others, AIR 2024 Supreme

Court 5065, the question which was required for adjudication was under

what circumstances the power for further investigation could be invoked.

Observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court which are relevant for the

purpose have been reproduced as under:-

“28. The legal position on the aspect of further investigation is fairly
well settled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pursuant to
the recommendation of the Law Commission, in its 41st Report, Section
173(8) has been expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy that
may have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:

“173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate
and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of
the police station obtains further evidence, oral or
documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further
report or reports regarding such evidence in the form
prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or
reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under
sub-section (2).”

29. The question really is, under what circumstances could this power
be invoked and whether on the facts of this case, is a further
investigation warranted.

32. Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances
have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness
of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete
out justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2016) 3 SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. State
(Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where fresh
materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously

8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 9-

accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the
notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an
offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency
to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the
court.

34. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC
762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the power of Magistrate to
direct further investigation had the following to say:

“41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further
investigation” is a significant power which has to be
exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the
ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable
investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency
and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to
ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the
orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the
police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead
to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary
report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This
is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3)
to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of
Section 173(8) of the Code.”

35. It is essential to note that this Court emphasized that though power
to order further investigation is a significant power it has to be
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of
justice (see Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2023) 1
SCC 48, para 45). Whether further investigation should or should not
be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate and the said
discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in accordance
with law. This Court also held that 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 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to direct
further investigation or even reinvestigation. This Court reiterated the
principle that even under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the wide powers are to

9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 10-

be exercised fairly with circumspection and in exceptional cases.”

17. In view of the above discussion, it emerges that there is no

dispute about the proposition that Sections 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure permits further investigation and even de hors any direction from

the Court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after

the Court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report

earlier submitted and as such, there is no hesitation to hold that the

Investigating Officer has power to conduct further investigation in a case

even after challan has been presented against an accused and even charges

are framed and that power can be exercised while at its own or by seeking

permission from the concerned Magistrate. In the instant case, the petitioner

who is lodger of FIR No. 21 dated 06.03.2018 as against respondents No. 7

and 8, is challenging the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Court of the

concerned Judicial Magistrate and the judgment dated 24.07.2024 passed by

the revisional Court whereby prayer made by him to give direction to the

police authorities to conduct further investigation in the matter had been

declined. No doubt, a Magistrate has power to give direction to conduct

further investigation. However, in view of the ratio of law as laid down in

the above cited authorities, it is clear that the further investigation can be

ordered only when the same is required to arrive at the truth and to do real

substantial justice. Exercising of powers for directing further investigation is

purely a discretion of the Magistrate which is required to be exercised in

accordance with law and keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of a particular case. This power is to be exercised sparingly in

exceptional cases, to achieve the ends of justice and where fresh material

10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 11-

comes to light. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that

though he had lodged FIR qua theft of a sum of more than Rs. 25,00,000/-

by the respondents No. 7 and 8 and these respondents returned an amount of

Rs. 5,00,000/- to him but they did not pay the remaining amount to him. The

petitioner has insisted for addition of offences under Sections 201, 451, 454

and 206 of IPC. Merely because such Sections are not added cannot be

considered to be a ground for directing the police authorities to conduct

further investigation. As informed, now even a charge under Section 381

read with Section 34 of IPC has been framed as against respondents No. 7

and 8. It is for the learned trial Magistrate to frame charges under the

relevant Sections against the accused person/persons on appraising the

record and observing as to what offences are prima facie made out as against

such accused. Even, if, the investigating agency does not challan an accused

under a particular Section(s), the Magistrate had still power to frame

charge(s) under any particular Section if a prima facie case is made out.

Obviously, the charges under the aforementioned Sections have not been

framed as against respondents No. 7 and 8 by the Magistrate as according to

him, no case for framing of the same was made out. During the course of

arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince

this Court on the point that the charged under the proposed Sections 201,

451, 454 and 206 of IPC have been made out. Undisputedly, a Magistrate is

competent to frame/amend charges at any stage of the trial, if the petitioner

succeeds in producing evidence of any such nature which can be considered

to be sufficient by the learned trial Magistrate to frame charges under the

proposed Sections, obviously, the petitioner would be at liberty to ask for the

11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005421

CRM-M-1684-2025 12-

same but non framing of charges under the above mentioned Sections cannot

be held to be a ground seeking further investigation of the matter. The Court

of trial Magistrate after considering all the facts have passed a well reasoned

order, which has been rightly affirmed by the learned Revisional Court.

These orders do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity and

therefore, do not warrant any interference. As such, finding no reasonable

ground to allow the petition, the same is dismissed.

18. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending

application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
15th January, 2025
Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No

2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

12 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2025 23:47:37 :::