Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah, was one of the accused charge-sheeted in connection with the collapse of Shikhar Apartment in Ahmedabad during the 2001 earthquake, which resulted in 98 deaths. The private respondent, a victim, filed an application under Section 173(8) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking further investigation against one M.N. Bhaumik, who had not been charge-sheeted. The Magistrate dismissed the application on merits and on the ground that after charge-sheet, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order further investigation. The victim then filed Special Criminal Application No. 8704 of 2018 before the Gujarat High Court challenging that order. The appellant, who was already charge-sheeted and facing trial, filed an application to be impleaded as a party respondent in that petition. The High Court dismissed the impleadment application, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether a charge-sheeted co-accused has any locus standi or right to be heard in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another uncharged accused. The Court noted that the application for further investigation sought no relief against the appellant, and the relief was only against Bhaumik. The Court relied on precedents including Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, which held that even a proposed accused has no right to be heard at the stage of further investigation. The Court concluded that the appellant, being already charge-sheeted and not the subject of the further investigation application, had no locus to be impleaded. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi - Further Investigation - Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - A co-accused who has already been charge-sheeted and against whom trial is in progress has no locus standi to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused who has not been charge-sheeted, as no relief is sought against the charge-sheeted accused. (Paras 6-8)
B) Criminal Procedure - Impleadment - Necessary and Proper Party - Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - A charge-sheeted accused cannot be considered a necessary or proper party in a petition challenging the rejection of an application for further investigation against another uncharged person, as the outcome of such proceedings does not directly affect the charge-sheeted accused's rights or liabilities. (Paras 7-8)
C) Criminal Procedure - Right to be Heard - Further Investigation - Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Even a proposed accused against whom further investigation is sought has no right to be heard at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC, as held in Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626 and Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65. Consequently, a charge-sheeted co-accused has even less of a right to be heard. (Paras 4.2, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-accused who has already been charge-sheeted and against whom trial is in progress has any locus standi or right to be heard in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused who has not been charge-sheeted.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had not erred in refusing to implead the appellant. The Court found that the appellant, being a charge-sheeted accused against whom no relief was sought in the further investigation application, had no locus standi to be impleaded as a party. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Locus standi of co-accused in further investigation proceedings
- Right to be heard under Section 173(8) CrPC
- Necessary and proper party in criminal writ petitions
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020
Shri Maninder Singh (Senior Advocate for appellant), Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee (for respondent-State), Private respondent appeared in person
Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order refusing impleadment of co-accused in a writ petition challenging rejection of application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to be impleaded as a party respondent in the Special Criminal Application filed by the victim before the High Court.
Filing Reason
The appellant, a charge-sheeted accused, claimed that he was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings and that his impleadment would enable him to raise legal objections against the maintainability of the victim's application for further investigation.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the victim's application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC on 29.08.2018. The High Court dismissed the appellant's impleadment application on 24.12.2018.
Issues
Whether a co-accused who has been charge-sheeted and is facing trial has any locus standi to be impleaded in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another uncharged accused.
Whether the appellant is a necessary or proper party in the Special Criminal Application filed by the victim.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that as per Rule 51 of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, all parties to the proceedings from which the appeal arises must be made parties, and that he was a party to the criminal case. He also relied on Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka and Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel to argue that the victim's application was not maintainable.
Respondent (victim) argued that the appellant had no locus as no relief was sought against him; the application was only against Bhaumik. He relied on Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India v. W. N. Chadha to submit that even a proposed accused has no right to be heard at this stage.
State of Gujarat supported the respondent, submitting that the appellant was not an affected party and had no say in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
A co-accused who has already been charge-sheeted and against whom trial is in progress has no locus standi to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation against another accused who has not been charge-sheeted, as no relief is sought against the charge-sheeted accused and the outcome does not directly affect his rights.
Judgment Excerpts
Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and against whom the trial is in progress, is required to be heard and/or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC – further investigation qua one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date?
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the private respondent herein, we are of the opinion that as such no error has been committed by the High Court dismissing the application submitted by the appellant herein to implead him in the Special Criminal Application filed by the private respondent herein challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC with respect to one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date.
Procedural History
FIR No. I-58 of 2001 was lodged on 26.01.2001. Charge-sheet filed on 02.05.2001 against appellant and others. After rounds of litigation, three accused (Yagnesh Vyas, Sanjay Shah, Ronak Shah) were not charge-sheeted. Victim filed application under Sections 173(8) and 156(3) CrPC for further investigation against M.N. Bhaumik. Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed application on 29.08.2018. Victim filed Special Criminal Application No. 8704 of 2018 before Gujarat High Court. Appellant filed impleadment application in that petition. High Court dismissed impleadment on 24.12.2018. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 173(8), 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 304, 418, 420, 114
- Gujarat Ownership of Flats Act: 3(2)(c), 3(2)(d), 7(1)(i), 7(1)(ii), 42
