Merely Because Police Filed Chargesheet & Cognizance Taken, Court Can’t Confine To It; Magistrate Can Permit Police To Further Investigate Matter: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that merely because the police filed chargesheet and cognizance taken, the court cannot confine to the chargesheet.
The Court also observed that the Magistrate can permit the police to further investigate the matter on an application by Investigating Officer.
The Court observed thus in a criminal petition preferred by an accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), challenging the order of the Magistrate against the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(8) of CrPC, permitting for further investigation in a case for the offences under Sections 201 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice K. Natarajan held, “In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, this court also followed the same in writ petition No.17118/2022 dated 28.5.2024 has permitted the police to further investigate the matter by dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, I am of the view, merely the police filed the charge sheet and cognizance taken, the Court cannot confine to the charge sheet. If the Investigating Officer makes an application for further investigation of the matter to the Magistrate, the Magistrate has power to permit the police to further investigate the matter.”
Advocate Nataraj G. appeared on behalf of the petitioner while HCGP Anitha Girish appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, a private complaint was filed under Section 200 of CrPC read with Section 156(3) of CrPC. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for registering the FIR and filing the report. The police after receipt of the complaint, registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 34, 120B, 471, 420, 463, 468, and 506(B) of IPC. Thereafter, the police filed chargesheet against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 420 and 201 of IPC. The Magistrate took the cognizance and also secured the presence of the petitioner and framed charges and subsequently issued summons to the complainant.
It was alleged that the said complainant appeared before the court and at this stage, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) filed an application under Section 173(8) of IPC for directing the Investigating Officer (IO) to conduct further investigation. Subsequently, the said interlocutory application was withdrawn by APP after objection raised by the petitioner’s counsel. It was further alleged that the complainant said to have approached IO and filed representation seeking further investigation. Then once again IO appeared before the court and filed an application under Section 173(8) CrPC, seeking further investigation. The same was allowed by the Magistrate and being aggrieved by this, the petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “It cannot be construed as re-investigation and merely the Magistrate not given any notice to the accused while directing the police to further investigate the matter, that itself is not ground to quash the impugned order for the purpose of investigation. The magistrate has always power to further investigate the matter.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Annegowda v. The State and Others
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Nataraj G.
Respondents: HCGP Anitha Girish and Advocate Surendra Kumar N.
