Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bikash Ranjan Rout, was the original accused in FIR No. 426/2007 registered at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against the appellant. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West) Delhi, by order dated 05.02.2013, discharged the appellant. However, in the same order, the Magistrate directed the Additional Commissioner of Police (West) Delhi to make an appreciation of the quality of investigation and ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), directing the investigating officer to submit a report. The appellant challenged this part of the order before the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 3386 of 2013. During the pendency of that petition, the District Investigating Unit issued summons under Section 160 CrPC to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the investigation was faulty and the Magistrate was justified in ordering further investigation. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the question whether a Magistrate can order further investigation after discharging the accused. The Court held that once the accused is discharged, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The power to order further investigation is available only at the pre-cognizance stage or during trial, not after discharge. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the part of the Magistrate's order directing further investigation, and quashed the summons issued under Section 160 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Magistrate's Power After Discharge - Section 173(8) CrPC - Once a Magistrate discharges the accused after considering the charge-sheet and material on record, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and cannot order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC - The power to order further investigation is available only at the pre-cognizance stage or during trial, not after discharge - Held that the order for further investigation after discharge is impermissible (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Magistrate can order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after discharging the accused?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 20.08.2014 and the part of the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 05.02.2013 directing further investigation. The summons issued under Section 160 CrPC were also quashed.
Law Points
- Magistrate becomes functus officio after discharging accused
- cannot order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC
- distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance powers
- order for further investigation after discharge is impermissible
