Across the country, there are at least 3,00,000 people being tried under section 498A.
The Indian Home Ministry, in 2005, revealed that over 50,000 498A cases were being registered each year. Please see the excerpt below:
“According to data provided by Ministry of Home Affairs, there were 58,319 registered cases and 134,757 people underwent arrest under 498A and A and Dowry Prohibition Act. That is on average 2.3 people were arrested in every complaint of woman. There were 358 children and 4,744 senior citizens arrested. Out of 129,655 cases, approximately 18 per cent (23,337) were not charge sheeted and hence suffered only because these acts are non-bailable”
I came up with an estimate of 300,000 for the sake of prudence, but I believe that this is a very low figure: The NCRB reported that over 99,000 cases were registered under cruelty by husbands and relatives (Section 498A) in 2011 — and I find this number to be unbelievable. You can check the numbers here: Crime In India –2011
Though a number of cases registered are “settled” in the police station itself, the remainder end up in the Indian criminal justice system.
As the Home Ministry reported, each 498A case has at least 2 people named in an FIR; I calculated that at the least — since a trial in an Indian court can last 3 to 7 years — there are 3,00,000 Indians (50,000 cases/year * 2 Indians/case * 3 years under trial = 300,000 Indians) running around trial courts trying to get acquitted from their 498A cases.
It is a fact that the Indian police rarely conduct any investigation after registering an FIR in 498A cases. Most of the time, the contents of the FIR are copied and turned into a charge-sheet. I speak from experience, as that’s what happened in my case, and also because Justice Dhingra stated this in a judgment (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004) in Nov/07. Here’s the excerpt from this judgment:
It is a fact that the Indian police rarely conduct any investigation after registering an FIR in 498A cases. Most of the time, the contents of the FIR are copied and turned into a charge-sheet. I speak from experience, as that’s what happened in my case, and also because Justice Dhingra stated this in a judgment (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004) in Nov/07. Here’s the excerpt from this judgment:
Over the years, the Indian police led Indians to believe that once a charge sheet is filed, the matter is out of their hands and that the only recourse to justice is to file quash petitions in moribund, slow, and callous state high courts. The other options are to give in to the extortion and pay up, or to run around trial courts for years either to get acquitted, or worse, convicted. Convictions can occur, though charge-sheets were filed without nvestigations, if the judge or magistrate is corrupt –which appears to be the norm these days.
Please do remember that the Indian judiciary is corrupt.
I often wondered if there was an alternative path to an acquittal and I found the answer: The Indian Supreme Court, in a judgment from 1979, stated that the Indian police can “further” investigate cases after charge sheets have been filed — even if the trial has commenced.
I often wondered if there was an alternative path to an acquittal and I found the answer: The Indian Supreme Court, in a judgment from 1979, stated that the Indian police can “further” investigate cases after charge sheets have been filed — even if the trial has commenced.
See the excerpt below from SC – Ram Lal Narang vs State Of Delhi 1979:
Anyone acquainted with the day today working of the criminal courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate ? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a Court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court of any offence. We think that in the interests of the independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of the purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light.
Here is the complete judgment*:
Based on this judgment, the Bombay and Patna High Courts allowed the police to re-investigate/re-examine a witness. You can read these judgments* below:
- Bombay HC: Satish Pandurang Jagtap vs State Of Maharashtra 1995
- Patna HC: Dinesh Badiwala vs State Of Bihar & Ors -2011
But how does a powerless, helpless Indian citizen, being tried in a criminal court, and with no connections of any kind, get the police to re-investigate a case after a charge sheet is filed?
For additional information, please read the comments posted by Carlisle Collins.
I have a few ideas and I’ll list them soon…
*My thanks to Indiakanoon.org for placing these judgements in the public domain.
========================================
IPC 498A 
Wait a sec, my dear friend! Let’s not jump the gun: we’d be in dangerous waters!
Firstly, make no reference whatsoever to “Re-Investigation”. There’s no such bird. If it exists, the Hon. Supreme Court has ordered it be shot on sight. So, let’s call it “Further Investigation” and we will have saved a life!
Now, on to your issue: Plz. bear in mind this is not legal advice per se, but an opinion! Take it or leave it …
You are basing your opinion on a 1979 judgment. But a superseding landmark judgment that popped a hole in that decision was a 2006 ruling made by the Andhra High Court in Sadhu Narayana vs The Sho I-Town P.S. (Criminal Petition No.2627 OF 2003 – 19.04.2006). The Hon. Justice V. Eswariah deliberated upon “whether the Magistrate before whom the charge sheet has been filed can direct the police to further investigate the matter after taking cognizance and after appearance of the accused and after examining the witnesses”. Citing an Apex Court ruling in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) dt. 20 December, 1996, the learned Sri Justice relied upon the following assessment of the Supreme Court which found it “necessary” to “peep into a little grey area of the criminal law” (Full judgment: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/847835/ and http://indiankanoon.org/doc/966743/).
“The Apex Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) held that the Court can direct further investigation at the time of cognizance and after cognizance is taken. But after appearance of the accused and after commencement of trial on charge being framed, the Court is not empowered to order further investigation. After appearance of the accused and after commencement of the trial, the court can only look into the materials already on the record and either frame charge, if a prima facie case is made out or discharge the accused bearing in mind relevant provisions. Of course, the discharge of the accused would not prevent further investigation by police and submission of charge sheet also thereafter, if a case for the same is made out. No doubt, police has got independent power to make further investigation and file any number of additional charge sheets, but the court cannot order further investigation after commencement of trial. In the instant case, the trial has been commenced and three witnesses have been examined and thereafter the District Judge issued official memo to the investigating officer as well as to the Magistrate concerned to pursue the matter and made the investigating officer to file additional charge sheet.”
Thereby the Hon. Justice V. Eswariah concluded, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the filing of additional charge sheet against the petitioner herein after commencement of the trial is illegal and without jurisdiction and abuse of process of law.”
Now, THAT put a damper on things!
But seeing as Clint Eastwood once opined about opinions; that “everyone has one of those …”, we must search for more statesmanlike opinions that go along the grain of and add muscle to what we essentially desire from the courts – IN WRITING so our argument becomes part of the formal court record.
A decision that must have ticked off the learned Andhra judge big time came from the Calcutta High Court in Anima Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 August, 2010—“Police is empowered u/s S.173(8) Cr.P.C. to make further investigation but, it does not debar a Magistrate to direct further investigation if Magistrate finds that earlier report submitted by police was on the basis of investigation, which was perfunctory and designedly defective.”
There have been significant changes brought about by the Supreme Court since then pertaining to conditional justification for Further Investigation after submission of charge sheet and commencement of Trial. The Court’s power to review and abate transgressions is conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication at any stage of Trial. See also SC Criminal Appeal No. Of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 370 of 2009 Rama Chaudhary …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Bihar …. Respondent(s), See Sasi Thomas Vs. State and others reported in 2006(12) SCC 421, In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,(2007) 4 Crimes 338 SC, In Secy., Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya15 (SCC vide para 6), In Divine Retreat Centre Vs.State of Kerala reported in AIR 2008 SC 1614, C.B.I. Vs. Rajesh Gandhi reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 63 “if the said Magistrate is satisfied about the allegations of the petitioner, he can direct the police agency which he deems to be appropriate to do the proper investigation into the complaint of the petitioner, and he can also monitor the police investigation., W.P.(MD).No.8707 of 2009 and M.P. (MD).No. 1 of 2009 G.Murugan (Petitioner).
The Supreme Court observed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Another v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (“the Best Bakery Case” – March 8, 2006) that manipulation of information is a common feature of criminal trials here, where basic elements of criminal justice (viz. police investigation, prosecution, and judicial oversight) have become dysfunctional to varying degrees; that our judicial system reveals in most cases, inclusive of my case, the public prosecutors appointed to help the court in administering justice, do not act in a manner befitting their position but dance to the beat set by the “investigating” agency and enjoin them by facilitating cover-ups and misleading the Hon. Courts.
Hon. Supreme Court had occasion to caution the Courts to be vigilant against the motivated or unfair dealings of the investigating officers during the course of investigation. In the case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P the Hon. Supreme Court said: “In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.”
The Hon Supreme Court observed that courts can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the Hon. Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the Hon. Court. If after considering the material on record the Hon. Court comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations but based upon circumstances of the said case and if the ends of justice would be met if further investigation is ordered in respect of the offenses committed.
Such pity that somewhere along the quest for justice, some have lost track of Honor, Integrity, and Spirit of the Law by averting to arbitrary, viscous procedures forgetting that it is well established that procedure is a mere handmaiden to Justice and should not stand in Her way..
Despite all these (and many more) Rulings, if the learned judge tells you to go pee in the corner (which is highly unlikely), you will have in your possession written documentation that will overturn his ruling on appeal.
Another more power-packed option to obtain an Order for Further Investigation is, as a de facto complainant, to formally report any incident relative to your situation as a suspected crime per CrPC Section 39.
So, you see, my dear friend, there’s more than one way to skin a cat and/or piss-off a judge. But, in my books, I’ve learned it’s better to be pissed-off than to be pissed on!
I hope this helps. Warm regards.
LikeLike
Thank you for this information. I’ve left a note to the readers to read your comment.
LikeLike
Well, dear readers, like I said on the subject of Further Investigation, there are opinions and opinions; and then there are big-time head scratchers! So, if you’re not confused already, just check out this link on the Rajesh Talwar trajic comedy:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/Once-a-Magistrate-take-cognizance-of-offence-under-sec-190-cannot-order-further-investigation-under-sec-156-3-Cr-P-C-except-session-court-passes-such-order-3558.asp#.UC08JaPwouc
What this amounts to is that there are certain current Supreme Court opinions that preclude court-ordered Further Investigations once a Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons. Then again, there are certain current Supreme Court opinions that CONDITIONALLY allow for court-ordered Further Investigations once a Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons!! Duh!
One observes that Law (i.e., Substantive Law) is, for the most part, the sturdy patriarch. But Adjective Laws, i.e., its interpretations which define the pleading and procedure by which substantive laws are applied in practice (its application to the situation on hand), and subsequent appellate rulings are the offspring from its nocturnal coition with Logic and Argument which, as is so typical with matriarchic influences, is given to flexibility, versatility, and persuasive glib.
Every serious student of Appellate Court rulings will reverently acknowledge that these Hon. Judges are the absolute, unsurpassed maestros of the language of argument – whether consenting or dissenting on the same issue.
Please notice that the reasoning and subsequent ruling in the above Link only deliberate and rule on one specific condition, viz., that “there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING OUT WHETHER SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND HAD COMMITTED THE OFFENSES in respect of the deceased persons Aarushi and/or Hemraj”. But RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, the Hon. Judge made the above blanket ruling.
Nevertheless, a capable lawyer would present persuasive argument as to how the above ruling was inapplicable to our particular case(s) citing other compelling rulings that empower the tribunal to Order Further Investigation at any stage of the trial (as mentioned by citations in my earlier commentary).
Persuasion is the projectile that gets results provided it is propelled by logic, sound argument, and supporting appellate rulings. This is the “bread and butter” of effective lawyers; they stimulate the intellect of appellate court judges while championing your cause for justice.
LikeLike
It really is one way to improve volume inside the abs as well as defer cravings for food for everybody who is dieting, and as well fulfill as well as rekindle this preferences. There is no denying that standard water is without a doubt essential for living. People today keep paying and continue to keep unable. Even if you are generally realistically certain you don’t have a physical obsession, you should not make things to be able to odds. Have you applied to the Area associated with Blood stream as well as Honies VIDEO excellent obtain to generally be very helpful? We will be to come back. Bonus #4: It may help in your marketing of the anabolic environment inside process. * three package deal (8-ounces each individual) gel gouda, melted together with slash on cubes The item works in approximately -109 degrees Fahrenheit which in turn takes away this fungi and also microbes regarding call. By way of mixing that options that come with a computer, your user can now use your white mother board for a touchscreen gain access to information and facts. — 1 day well before: all dollars usually are totally refundable in the event you could cancel your current reserving also 1 day just before as long as you will certainly call us within just a day prior to your current reserving time aside from the actual journey programs that will demands inn making your reservation for as well as airline flight priced, similar to your one day excursion as a result of airfare (in this case you certainly will recharged utilizing 25% of your absolute selling price to the cancelation 4 time earlier than & 50 % in the absolute if cancelation will transpire within 3 days and nights prior ones scheduling night out).
This is the best tried copycat formula intended for Krispy Kreme main glazed doughnuts: Your choices happen to be infinite. Every now and then check this pan to be sure that this type of water have not boiled down, if they have, add more standard water whilst creating meals the lobsters. 1 hole ham, cubed There are endless opportunities towards customize this dip to the preference. * What kind of mud do you have and is particularly the application effortless and tough to promote? You will see any time you choose to do obtain it, it is not necessary as much so that you can pack your cravings for food. Many why these noodles usually are banned some locations? Exactly why? Think about this: just what can a good egg cell say to your current viewers? Can many people ask: Exactly what meaning are you expressing being a portrayal associated with you as well as your small business? In truth the watch affirms a great egg spells junk! This can be a one of the first stuffs that comes in your thoughts. Your country wide usually ended up an outstanding 41.
{Auto|Motor|Car or truck|Automotive|Car} {Financing|Lending|Schooling|Loan|Funding} {Tips|Strategies|Tips and hints|Points|Ideas} {Some|Various|Numerous|Several|Many} {even|possibly even|perhaps even|also|possibly} {result to|lead to|cause|give you} casualties. {Their|Ones own|Your|The|Their own} {rates|quotes|interest rates|premiums|prices} {will be|can be|shall be|will likely be|is going to be} {lower than|fewer than|below what|under|less than} {financing|lending|finance|loan|funding} {your|ones own|an individual’s|ones|your own} {auto|motor|motor vehicle|automotive|car} {directly|straightaway|direct|specifically|straight} {through the|because of the|from your|throughout the|with the} {dealership|car dealership|car lot|store|dealer} {or|and|or simply|or maybe|or even} {manufacturer|brand|designer|supplier|producer}. {Suppose|Assume|Think|Consider|Imagine} {a|the|a good|some|any} {unit|device|machine|equipment|product} assembles n-number {of|associated with|for|from|regarding} {automobiles|cars|motors|instruments|autos} {in a day|per day|every day|day after day|in one day}, {then the|than the|then that|next the|then a} {unit|machine|equipment|system|product} {should be|has to be|could be|need to be|needs to be} {in a position to|qualified to|ready to|competent to|able to} {have|own|need|include|have got} {one|an individual|a particular|just one|a single} {and a half|. 0
When you are interested in receive any college degree. To resolve the problem opened up from mechanised designer watches, computerized engine watches ended up formulated. Aftermarket Segments: segments not really made by producer. There are around 40, 000 members in this association. Here’s another idea: come up with your current braking and even electricity directing models separate in the program and even go them in the automobile’s utility provide so the motor can be banned in cases where a little something poor transpires, though leaving the breaks or cracks together with steering functional.
LikeLike
chlorobenzene
soller
tomahawk’s
jumperism
monometer
school grants definition
preformulated
hipberry
condylion
floorage
LikeLike
oysterling
dunbird
brachycrany
leisureless
iad rates dulles airport parking
detriments
Flanders
ilks
chaetopterin
random pictures of someone
LikeLike
Blog Author and Carlisle,
Thanks for an excellent article. This gave me enough food for research for a week. I’d appreciate your opinions on my future course of action on my predicament:
1. False 498a case, chargesheet submitted, magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons. Accused have not yet appeared and trial has not started.
2. I have documentation to establish malafides of IO right from the beginning including forgery by IO, forgery by complainant, violation of accused’s liberty without cause, etc backed by solid evidence. I have been complaining to higher authorities with no result.
3. I also have strong documentation against the complainant’s malafide intent, under some extraordinary circumstances.
I am thinking of requesting a further investigation. What is the right way to do this?
1. u/s 178(3) of CrPC before Magistrate who took cognizance issued process?
2. as above, but u/s 156(3) of CrPC?
3. Writ to HC?
LikeLike
I don’t know anything about your particular predicament; more so, whether you happen to be the Complainant or Defendant in this Cause of Action. Therefore, my lay “advise” would be two-pronged:
1. If you are the Complainant on a mission of castigation (castration?) with a doctored FIR, I’d suggest you cool your heels, Sister! Work out an amicable, out of court compromise with some dignity and fair-mindedness and move on to better things in life. Beware of Karma: It has a certain way of seeking you out and biting off a big chunk of rump!
2. If you are the Defendant, I would go the CrPC 178(3) route unless your allegations fit within the very exacting requirements meriting a HC Quash.
As for you “complaining to higher authorities with no result”, in what form have your complaints been conveyed? Have they been “Dear Abby”-type sob-letters, or formalized thru’ police grievance procedures, or just verbal bitch sessions that no one really pays any serious attention to?
To complain is your right; remember, “the wheel that squeaks the most gets the grease”. But you must “squeak” in an approved, objective manner for it to be effective.
The problem with critiquing lapses and lacunae before the investigating agency is that they will be alerted to your line of defense in advance, and will be better prepared to cover up their tracks during trial.
Again, I have no knowledge of your particular case factors, but if I found myself in your position (God forbid!) , I would shoot off an RTI request to the PIO of the police agency. This should be a carefully worded, itemized questionnaire strategically aimed to weaken/negate evidence in aggravation (e.g., determine whether the evidence was obtained thru’ unlawful means – therefore suppressible? Did they follow procedures? The “Who, What, Where, When” part of the charges – so the judge can figure out the “Why”, etc., etc.) and admissions that strengthen/support your defense.
What the heck! You could do some snooping around and determine whether the IO has a personal stake in the matter? Any scandal in his private life? How much “mamul” does he extort from his Sector, etc. Answers are easily gotten from his junior-most staff if you get them talking (in vino veritas!). Then slip in a question asking for the IO’s assets! I’m sure your Mrs. has some skeletons in her closet also (that she wouldn’t want made public).
Those are just a few ideas popping up in my devious mind. My advice to you is NEVER allow your relationship with a woman go this far down. Chances are, it’s not really the woman sticking it in you, but her “supporters” and “advisers”: they bring out the “inner bitch”: every man’s nightmare (and every lawyer’s banquet).
I hope this helps. Good Luck.
LikeLike
Hi collins , can i go for quashing u/s 482 , territorial jurisdiction grounds , as alleaged cruelty/ harassment 498A was done in Mumbai where I stay and 498A filed in Delhi , Vikaspur where i never went.
LikeLike
Hi! There’s a lot more to your question than a simple “Yes” “No” answer!
One of the greatest attributes of this our country is you can do whatever the heck you feel is right and back your play with supporting cites and reason. Another great attribute of this our country is that no matter how strongly you might feel your argument is “right on”, you can still be shot down with a stronger, more compelling argument.
Please do not misinterpret this response as flippancy; a move to parry your serious concerns with glibness. I keep an open mind about judicial discretion and the immense power inherent in judicial interpretation. There’s a generally recognized but oft vilified maxim in strategic litigation, “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit”! Regardless, I’ve seen it work many times over in court.
Even if the Hon. Magistrate denies your initial request (for good reason, of course), there’s an appellate process in place. Go that route if necessary. STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS because many patriots laid down their lives for our Rights. QUESTION AUTHORITY! Hire a lawyer with proven professional acumen and a track record of stellar integrity. There are plenty such people around. Just don’t turn rocks over ‘cos all you’ll find are maggots. Ask around, do your own research, be an observant spectator and attend some sessions in Family Court (of a nature similar to yours) so you can pick the cream from the crud … You might find someone who’ll do it pro bono or on a sliding scale. Good Luck!
LikeLike
Collins , where are you from and are you a practising Lawyer. please do reply mybabaalibaba@gmail.com
LikeLike
Thank you, Sir. I am grateful for the response.
I am the accused along with senior citizen parents. The quash sounds a tad unlikely since there’s lots of fabricated evidence. My layman reading of case-law also tells me that IO malafide doesn’t end up in quash, so I am focusing on “further investigation” for now.
I’ll try the 173(8) route (apologies for the typo, not 178(3)). Am I right in assuming powers u/s 156(3) end once CS has been filed so 173(8) is the way to go, followed by appeals higher up if denied?
What ticked the IO off was that I refused to pay a huge bribe at the beginning (family of freedom-fighters etc). The IO has strong political/higher-up support, and the ex- too, so it is a heady cocktail that quickly made things go awry for us. My RTI requests are all in the dustbin and I have been openly told to go have fun with the local SIC backlog.
I agree every bit with your last paragraph 🙂
LikeLike
Dear 498aFighter: You might find the following citations useful.
The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(l)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1).
Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section an investigation “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. Thus the object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him. [Delhi High Court – Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 9 July, 2010 – Crl.M.C.Nos.6122-23/2005 & Crl.M.C.Nos.6133-34/2005 Page 37 of 69].
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173(8) — Further investigation – Police is empowered u/s S.173(8) Cr.P.C. to make further investigation but, it does not debar a Magistrate to direct further investigation if Magistrate finds that earlier report submitted by police was on the basis of investigation, which was perfunctory and designedly defective.
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Anima Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 August, 2010
Author: Mrinal Kanti Sinha
. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
CRR NO. 1817 of 2009
Anima Ghosh Vs.The State of West Bengal
PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI SINHA
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly,
Mr. Bhaskar Seth .. for the petitioner.
Sk. Kasem Ali Ahmed …for the State.
Heard on : 26.07.2010.
Judgement On : 02. O8. 2010.
Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J :
“This revisional application has been directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 4.4.2009 in G.R. case No. 160/2009, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned rejected the petition of the defacto-complainant, the present petitioner, praying for necessary order after setting aside the impugned order…… “.
PETITION GRANTED: “The impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat on 04.04.2009 rejecting the petition of the petitioner dated 25.03.2009 filed in G.R. case No. 160/2009 arising out of Balurghat police station case No. 72 dated 27.02.2009, is hereby set aside.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PLEASE STUDY THE ENTIRE JUDGEMENT.
LikeLike
By the way, 498a fighter, about your RTI requests fermenting in the dustbin, there’s an effective appellate process in place for just such eventualities. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them. Regards.
LikeLike
I am very familiar with the appellate process. The IO happens to be the FAA (First Appellate Authority) so the requests got moved to a different dustbin. Now, I’m slowly working my way through the avg 1.5 year backlog in the SIC. A request demonstrably affecting life and liberty is awaiting disposal 8 months later. Ugh.
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to help.
The first citation confirms 156(3) is ruled out, not because CS is filed as I thought, but because cognizance has been taken and process issued. Thank you.
The second citation is very useful, and I’ve already armed myself with it from your earlier post. Something I find from this and related citations is that (i) further investigation u/s 173(8) has been successful where the accused has been demonstrably favoured by a perfunctory investigation (ii) otherwise, writs are filed in HC and SC asking for CBI referrals.
I don’t know if this is a coincidence or I am extrapolating too much. My case is the opposite, as I am the accused. Despite this, I will be arming myself with the reasoning of the Judge in this citation in the below paragraphs to support my stand, which seem to be agnostic of the position of the petitioner (accused/complainant):
======
12. As per the decision reported in 2004 C. Cr. LR (SC) 865 when defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, then it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permit and the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice and such further investigation may be done even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted.
13. It has also been decided by the decision reported in 2005(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 295 that Section 173(8) of the Code empowers police to make further investigation but, it does not debar a Magistrate to direct further investigation if the Magistrate finds that the earlier report submitted by police was on the basis of investigation, which was perfunctory and designedly defective.
14. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in 2008 (1) E.Cr.N. page 852 also has stated about reconsideration of the prayer for further investigation in the light of the observation made in the said decision.
=======
P.S.: As an aside, to my limited layman knowledge, in the above Anima Ghosh citiation, it is not clear to me if the Judge’s perusal of the case diary in passing judgment was legal in view of the bar u/s CrPC 172. Methinks not 🙂
LikeLike
Sir, is the IO actually required only to make the prosecution case strong? Is it legal if documents supplied by IO and acknowledged by him are intentionally withheld from CS esp. if they will discharge the accused?
LikeLike
You might google ‘Brady Law’ in the US; over there, it is your constitutional Right to be informed of all mitigating, exculpatory evidence the prostitution (?) has in its possession. Numerous cases, especially capital offenses, were acquitted by the government violating this Right! I am certain the principle applies mutatis mutandis in all parts of the civilized world. India is generally recognized as a part of the civilized world! I haven’t had time to research any local cases that make reference to this. But that doesn’t mean they’re not there. As for the IO being biased, that’s usually the exception. Many cases are not even registered for being frivolous or lacking spine. Of course, there are incentives that can sway him either way… To my knowledge, there are no records to show that the IO was ostracized for witholding evidence of the Defendant’s innocence. That’s one of the reasons why God made lawyers – and it’s the 98% that give the 2% a bad name!
LikeLike
Thanks. I will research that. Could you please help me find the judgments corresponding to 2004 C. Cr. LR (SC) 865 and 2005(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 295 referred to above?
A couple of lawyers I spoke to insist that “further investigation” is the prerogative of the complainant only 😦
LikeLike
There’s an old Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” I’ve attempted to point you in the right direction. I’m too old and frail to carry you there as well; we have Google and other legal sites for that! No offense intended, but I believe you’ll be better honed for battle this way. I wish you great success.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the kind wishes, Sir. Just in case that above comment appeared like a dumb and lazy person asking for help, let me assure you it is not intentional.
When the Anima Ghosh judgment cited 2004 C. Cr. LR (SC) 865 and 2005(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 295, it did so without party name, judgment date, judge name or any other identifying information except the above references to Criminal Law Reporter. I’ve searched futilely on IndianKanoon, judis.nic.in, Google, etc and can’t find the judgments, sans the aid of any of the above identifying parameters. Admittedly, I don’t know how to use a Cr LR journal reference to get them except to somehow find a way to lay my hands on a physical copy.
Thank you for your patience with me, and the advice you kindly offered.
LikeLike
Hey, Bro! I’m sorry if I sounded like a tired old man yearning for some sleep; that’s because I AM!
Are you sure you’re not referring to Supreme Court of India –
Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 13 August, 2010 – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009).
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/
I’ll check out the other one when I go to the HC library sometime next week., Again, Sorry! I really didn’t mean to sound like my wife dumped me – even though she did!! Best thing that happened. God bless the woman …
LikeLike
Does this help any?
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1799301/
LikeLike
i have read the above mentioned statements. But wats happening with the genuine cases. I filed a case against my husband 10 days ago n there is no action taken against him till date. He is using all the loop holes in the law n he is in absconding. The most shocking point is that police itself r helping him to do so. I went fr a help to CI, ACP N DCP too. They were so rude towards me n in return supported d accused one in the case u/s 498A n DP ACT 3&4. I lost hopes on police. How can they help an accused 1 wen i hv provided al d evidences in d case. What is d answer wen i went through lot of hell shown by my husband frm past one year. He tortured me to an extent n abused me so baly…. In wat is dis called as justice. Im exhausted by being d police frm 10 days….. There is nothing called as justice… Its jst fake….. Im frm hyderabad n dis is wat i feel.
Thanks fr reading….
LikeLike
I am overcome with sympathy; my hemorrhoids pop for like-situationed purported victims who are not getting the desirable response from the police. If I were in your saree (heaven forbid), I would get a clue! There must be some valid reasons as to why gluttonous sharks should shy away from carrion? Perhaps because your “evidence” is no evidence? Move on, Sister: there are plenty of other prospects you can zero in on. And with your newly acquired experience, maybe you could do a successful number on the next schmuk that pops into your scheme unawares. Keep trying; you may hit the jackpot and fornicate with someone else’s honest earnings. (See? I’m on your side …!). :-))
LikeLike
This blog was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something which helped me.
Many thanks!
LikeLike
Souds like SPAM to me! On the other hand, this blog does deal with “common diseases of cats”: Testosteronic Pussy!
LikeLike
I was suggested this website by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know
such detailed about my difficulty. You are incredible!
Thanks!
LikeLike
I am the person who interacted with you above way back in Nov ’12. I read and reread every aspect of law there is about further investigation in India. 8 months hence, I managed to get one sympathetic police officer to order one in my case, which, in theory, should at least get my ailing parents out of this mess. But the ex- is using her $$$ to scuttle this. We’ll see.
Thanks for a wonderful combination of knowledge and humor! The puns alone are to die for 😉
My next topic for research is holding those corrupt police officers accountable for what they did. CrPC 197 etc.
LikeLike
Do you have a spam problem on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many
of us have developed some nice methods and we
are looking to swap solutions with others, please
shoot me an e-mail if interested.
LikeLike
I and all of my extended family are defendant caught in a strange situation in a 498A case where the IO investigating the case made a grave mistake in his report and later corrected it. He in fact stated that the groom had paid dowry to the bride instead of the other way round. He made a correction to the report and filed before magistrate court. The complainant took this to the High court and said that the IO was partial to defendant and made omissions to many of the key points. the complainant seems to be looking at an opportunity to beef up the case with more accusations. The IO in the meanwhile was himself involved in a dowry harassment case and suspended. This further strengthened the complainant’s argument and High court has now directed for fresh investigation into the matter. My advocate advises me to not let this happen by appealing to supreme court as the new investigating AC and magistrates will be biased with the HC’s remarks on the case that the investigation was done hastily and omissions were made. I am confused how this will impact my case and whether to appeal before supreme court to not let fresh investigation as directed by HC. I am also told that it costs a lot of money to fight such case in SC. How many sessions or arguments do such cases typically run into? Please advise.
LikeLike
Thank you for every other wonderful post. Where else may just anyone get that type of information in such
an ideal method of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I am at the
search for such information.
LikeLike
My car met with an accident. I didn’t stop the car after the accident. I doubt that the other driver has given a police complaint. My car is registered in kerala and the accident took place in tamil nadu. What is the maximum time to wait for police action or enquiries
LikeLike
Hi, I have an urgent query regarding investigation done by police in pursuance to FIR under Sec. 498A.
if the police alongwith complainant is conducting a house search, will they only look for the said ‘dowry articles’ or they will conduct a thorough search and try to find anything that can possibly implicate the husband? what about case and jewelleries or any other valuable of his own? will they look for all kinds of documents, bills?
how can the husband safeguard himself?
LikeLike
I read a lot of interesting content here. Probably you spend a lot of
time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time,
there is an online tool that creates readable, google friendly articles in seconds,
just type in google – laranita free content source
LikeLike
Awesome content you post here, i have shared this post on my twitter
LikeLike
Dear friend, Heartiest congratulations. Your posts are full of dazzling knowledge and profound wisdom. May I share my experiences with you? I am a complainant in FIR No. 57 of 1993 u/s 448/420/468/471, Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092. A detailed Order-on-charge was passed on 28.5.1997 by MM on the ground of circumstantial evidence. Accused was discharged in Revision by ASJ on 23.11.1997 on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove the offence of forgery. HC and SC refused to interfere with Order of ASJ. However, as luck would have it, one Mr. Ulfat, the alleged predecessor of the accused, on 12.7.2005, in a Civil Suit, denied the execution of the documents forged by the accused. Thereafter, Public Grievances Commission (PGC) directed further investigation on 27.1.2006 on the ground of availability of fresh evidence. However, IO closed the further investigation on 20.6.2010 on the ground that the said Mr. Ulfat had expired subsequently on 18.10.2005. I again approached PGC, and, police stubbornly reiterated the plea of the subsequent death of the said Mr. Ulfat. PGC directed police to take legal opinion from Prosecution Branch. Ultimately, police submitted two status reports dated 3.2.2014 and 24.3.2014 to the effect that on obtaining legal opinion from Prosecution Branch, further investigation is being carried out and it will take some time to finalise the same. Accordingly, PGC closed the case on 24.3.2014. However, police did not do any further investigation. Thereafter, I filed application u/s 156 (3) CrPC on 6.6.2015 in the Hon’ble Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka, CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for directions for completion of further investigation already resumed on 24.3.2014. Status Report dated 31.10.2015 filed by police has taken a U-turn and has again raked up the plea of the death of the said Mr. Ulfat. Next date is 25.8.2017. On the last date (8.8.2017), I also filed contempt petition (criminal) against the accused and 4 police officers for perverting the due course of justice and for obstructing the administration of justice through, inter alia, the said U-turn, and, through making downright false and misleading statements before the Hon’ble Court, which amount to criminal contempt, vide Narmada Bachao Andolan v State of Madhya Pradesh (SC, 2011). In my humble opinion, police is playing fast and loose with the powers vested in it; having the cake and eating it too; blowing hot and cold; approbation and reprobation.
Would you please enlighten me whether it is permissible for police to take the said U-turn and that too on false grounds? Secondly, I have diligently searched Google, but could not find any similar case. By any chance, do you have any relevant information or case-law for understanding the true legal position and for convincing the learned CMM to issue directions for completion of further investigation already resumed on 24.3.2014.
With best regards and best wishes.
vijay.kumar.agarwal.ias@gmail.com
LikeLike
Dear friend,
Heartiest congratulations.
Your posts are full of dazzling knowledge and profound wisdom.
May I share my experiences with you?
A professional land-grabber has grabbed my property measuring 433.5 square yards (60’x65′) situated in Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110091. He has freely and fragilely forged notarised GPA, Agreement and Receipt and used them as genuine for obtaining electricity connection and house tax assessment, etc. in his name.
On my complaint, FIR No. 57 of 1993 u/s 448/420/468/471 was registered in Pandav Nagar Police Station, Delhi-110092.
Thereafter, a detailed Order-on-charge was passed on 28.5.1997 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
However, the accused was discharged in Revision by ASJ on 23.11.1997 on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove the offence of forgery.
HC and SC refused to interfere with the Order of ASJ.
However, as luck would have it, one Mr. Ulfat, the alleged predecessor of the accused, who was untraceable earlier, denied on 12.7.2005, in a Civil Suit, the execution of the documents forged by the accused.
Thereafter, on 27.1.2006, the Hon’ble Public Grievances Commission, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi (PGC) directed further investigation on the ground of availability of the said fresh evidence.
However, the IO closed the further investigation on 20.6.2010 on the ground that the said Mr. Ulfat had expired subsequently on 18.10.2005, and, informed me about it through a letter dated 20.6.2010.
Furthermore, the IO prepared a closure report dated 24.6.2010 and got it approved from the senior officers, but did not file it in the Hon’ble Court.
I again approached PGC, and, police stubbornly reiterated the plea of the subsequent death of the said Mr. Ulfat.
PGC directed police to take legal opinion from Prosecution Branch.
Ultimately, police submitted two status reports dated 3.2.2014 and 24.3.2014 to the effect that on obtaining legal opinion from Prosecution Branch, further investigation is being carried out and it will take some time to finalise the same.
Accordingly, PGC directed further investigation on 24.3.2014.
However, police kept mum and did not do any further investigation whatsoever.
Thereafter, I filed application u/s 156 (3) CrPC on 6.6.2015 in the Hon’ble Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka, CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for directions for completion of further investigation already resumed on 24.3.2014.
Status Report dated 31.10.2015 filed by police has taken a U-turn and has again raked up the plea of the death of the said Mr. Ulfat, and, has filed, after more than 5 years, the said closure report dated 24.6.2010 in the Hon’ble Court, and, has falsely stated that it could not be filed earlier due to the transfer of the IO who prepared it.
Police has further falsely stated in the Hon’ble Court that PGC directed further investigation on 24.3.2014 because the IO who submitted the said status reports dated 3.2.2014 and 24.3.2014 was not aware about the said closure report dated 24.6.2010. However, I have got documentary evidence which completely falsifies and belies the said statement of police.
Police is, thus, freely and fragilely playing fast and loose with the powers vested in it; having the cake and eating it too; blowing hot and cold; approbating and reprobating, with impunity.
Would you please enlighten me whether it is permissible for police to take the said U-turn and that too on false grounds?
Secondly, I have diligently searched Google, but could not find any similar case. By any chance, do you have any relevant information or case-law for understanding the true legal position and for convincing the learned CMM to issue directions for completion of further investigation already resumed on 24.3.2014.
On the last date (8.8.2017), I also filed contempt petition (criminal) against the accused and 4 police officers for sabotaging, subverting and perverting the due course of justice and for obstructing the administration of justice through, inter alia, the said U-turn, and, through making downright false and misleading statements before the Hon’ble Court, which amount to criminal contempt, vide Narmada Bachao Andolan v State of Madhya Pradesh (SC, 2011).
Next date is 25.8.2017.
With regards and best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Ex-IAS,
Mobile: 9560172716
Phone: 011-22486066, 011-22485508
vijay.kumar.agarwal.ias@gmail.com
LikeLike