BIKASH RANJAN ROUTversusSTATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY (HOME) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI

82                       [2019]
              SUPREME COURT     6 S.C.R. 82
                             REPORTS                      [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A                         BIKASH RANJAN ROUT
                                       v.
     STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY (HOME) GOVERNMENT
                OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI
B                     (Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2019)
                               APRIL 16, 2019
             [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 173(8), 167(2), 227
     and 228 – Powers of the Magistrate – Options available to the
C
     magistrate at the time when report/challan/charge-sheet is filed by
     investigating officer before him – On facts, the magistrate while
     discharging the accused, also passed an order for further
     investigation and directed the investigating officer to further
     investigate in the matter and submit the report – Permissibility of –
D    Held: Magistrate cannot suo moto direct for further investigation u/
     s. 173(8) or direct the re-investigation into a case at the post-
     cognizance stage, when, in exercise of powers u/s. 227, the
     Magistrate has discharged the accused – On facts, the investigating
     authority did not apply for further investigation and that the
     Magistrate suo moto passed an order for further investigation and
E
     directed the investigating officer to further investigate and submit
     the report, which is not permissible – Such course of action is beyond
     the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate – Thus, the order
     by the Magistrate ordering further investigation after he discharged
     the accused, cannot be sustained and is set aside – Investigating
F    officer at liberty to file an appropriate application for
     further investigation and submit a further report in exercise of
     powers u/s. 173(8).
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 After the investigation is concluded and the
G    report is forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section
     173(2)(i) CrPC, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report
     and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may
     disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may
     direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the
H    police to make a further report. If the Magistrate disagrees with
                                     82
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                      83
              GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

the report and drops the proceedings, the informant is required         A
to be given an opportunity to submit the protest application and
thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the informant, the
Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the
proceedings against the accused or not. If the Magistrate accepts
the objections, in that case, he may issue process and/or even
                                                                        B
frame the charges against the accused. Having not satisfied with
the investigation on considering the report forwarded by the police
under Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, the Magistrate may, at that stage,
direct further investigation and require the police to make a
further report. However, it is required to be noted that all the
aforesaid is required to be done at the pre-cognizance stage. Once      C
the Magistrate takes the cognizance and, considering the
materials on record submitted along with the report forwarded
by the police under Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, Magistrate in
exercise of the powers under Section 227 CrPC discharges the
accused, thereafter, it will not be open for the Magistrate to suo
                                                                        D
moto order for further investigation and direct the investigating
officer to submit the report. Such an order after discharging the
accused can be said to be made at the post-cognizance stage.
There is a distinction and/or difference between the pre-
cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage and the powers to
be exercised by the Magistrate for further investigation at the         E
pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage. The power to
order further investigation which may be available to the
Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage may not be available to
the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly,
when the accused is discharged by him. If the Magistrate was
                                                                        F
not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating
officer and the report submitted by the investigating officer under
Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, it was always open/permissible for the
Magistrate to direct the investigating agency for further
investigation and may postpone even the framing of the charge
and/or taking any final decision on the report at that stage.           G
However, once the Magistrate, on the basis of the report and the
materials placed along with the report, discharges the accused,
the Court is afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto
order the further investigation by the investigating agency. Once
the order of discharge is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has
                                                                        H
84            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A    no jurisdiction to suo moto direct the investigating officer for
     further investigation and submit the report. In such a situation,
     only two remedies are available: (i) a revision application can be
     filed against the discharge or (ii) the Court has to wait till the
     stage of Section 319 CrPC. However, at the same time,
     considering the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC, it is always
B
     open for the investigating agency to file an application for further
     investigation and thereafter to submit the fresh report and the
     Court may, on the application submitted by the investigating
     agency, permit further investigation and permit the investigating
     officer to file a fresh report and the same may be considered by
C    the Magistrate thereafter in accordance with law. The Magistrate
     cannot suo moto direct for further investigation under Section
     173(8) CrPC or direct the re-investigation into a case at the post-
     cognizance stage, more particularly when, in exercise of powers
     u/s. 227 CrPC, the Magistrate discharges the accused. However,
     Section 173(8) CrPC confers power upon the officer-in-charge of
D
     the police station to further investigate and submit evidence, oral
     or documentary, after forwarding the report under sub-section
     (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is always open for
     the investigating officer to apply for further investigation, even
     after forwarding the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173
E    and even after the discharge of the accused. [Para 7][94-A-H;
     95-A-F]
           1.2 In the instant case, the investigating authority did not
     apply for further investigation and that the Magistrate suo moto
     passed an order for further investigation and directed the
F    investigating officer to further investigate and submit the report,
     which is impermissible under the law. Such a course of action is
     beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate.
     Therefore, that part of the order passed by the Magistrate
     ordering further investigation after he discharges the accused,
     cannot be sustained. Thus, the judgment and order passed by
G    the High Court confirming an order passed by the Magistrate is
     quashed and set aside. At the same time, it would always be open
     for the investigating officer to file an appropriate application for
     further investigation and undertake further investigation and
     submit a further report in exercise of powers under Section 173(8)
H    CrPC. [Para 7.1][95-G-H; 96-A-B]
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                      85
              GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

      Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2                 A
      SCC 537 : [1985] 3 SCR 942 ; Reeta Nag v. State of
      West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129 : [2009] 13 SCR 276 ;
      Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (2013) 5 SCC
      762 : [2012] 13 SCR 1005 ; Vasanti Dubey v. State of
      Madhya Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 731 : [2012] 1 SCR
                                                                        B
      330 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC
      460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988 ; Randhir Singh Rana v. State
      (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 : [1996] 10
      Suppl. SCR 880 ; Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna
      (2009) 7 SCC 685 : [2009] 11 SCR 234 ; Hemant
      Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7              C
      SCC 536 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 646 ; Sajjan Kumar v.
      CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR 669 ; Minu
      Kumari v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 359 – referred
      to.
                       Case Law Reference                               D
[1985] 3 SCR 942               referred to             Para 4.5
[2009] 13 SCR 276              referred to             Para 4.5
[2012] 13 SCR 1005             referred to             Para 4.5
[2012] 1 SCR 330               referred to             Para 4.5         E
[2012] 7 SCR 988               referred to             Para 4.5
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 880       referred to             Para 4.5
[2009] 11 SCR 234              referred to             Para 5.2
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 646        referred to             Para 5.3         F

[2010] 11 SCR 669              referred to             Para 5.4
(2000) 4 SCC 359               referred to             Para 6.4
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 687 of 2019.                                                        G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3386 of 2013.
      Mrinal Kanti Mandal, Parvez Bashista, Mukesh Kumar, Debasis
Misra, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                                                        H
86             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A          Ms. Vibha Datha Makhija, Sr. Adv., Ms. B. Sunitha Rao, K. Subba
     Rao, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Leave granted.
B           2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
     and order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal
     M. C. No. 3386 of 2013 by which the High Court has dismissed the said
     petition and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West) Delhi dated 05.02.2013, by which
     the learned Magistrate ordered further investigation, the original accused
C    has preferred the present appeal.
            3. That the FIR was lodged against the appellant herein-original
     accused on 28.09.2007 being FIR No. 426/2007 at Police Station
     Janakpuri, Delhi for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the
     IPC. That on completion of the investigation, the investigating officer
D    filed the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences
     under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. That at the time of framing
     of the charge and considering the charge-sheet papers, the learned
     Magistrate discharged the appellant-original accused vide order dated
     05.02.2013. However, while discharging the accused and/or after the
E    accused was discharged, in the same order, the learned Magistrate
     directed the Additional Commissioner of Police (West) Delhi to make
     appreciation of quality of the investigation done in the case and to analyse
     the process of efficacy of sending any charge sheet before the prosecution
     branch for the purpose of scrutiny. Learned Magistrate also observed
     and directed that the case requires further investigation to reach a logical
F    conclusion and the same be done responsibly and the report be filed on
     11.04.2012 (sic).
            3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with that part of the order
     passed by the learned Magistrate dated 05.02.2013 by which the learned
     Magistrate directed further investigation and to submit the report, the
G    appellant-original accused approached the High Court by way of Criminal
     Miscellaneous Case No. 3386 of 2013. In the meantime, following the
     directions issued by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 05.02.2013,
     the District Investigating Unit, West District, Police Post MIG Flats, J-
     Block, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi issued summons dated 22.04.2013
     under Section 160 of the CrPC. The appellant also challenged the said
H
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                               87
        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

notice/summon issued under Section 160 of the CrPC. Basically, the               A
appellant herein challenged that part of the order dated 05.02.2013 passed
by the learned Magistrate, by which the learned Magistrate observed
and directed further investigation and also directed the investigating officer
to submit the report. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has dismissed the said petition and has refused to interfere with
                                                                                 B
the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate directing
further investigation by observing that the investigation was a faulty
investigation and/or no proper investigation was carried out on certain
aspects and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in inquiring
further investigation to reach to a logical conclusion. Consequently, the
High Court has dismissed the said petition. Hence, the appellant-original        C
accused is before this Court.
       4. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mandal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant-original accused, has vehemently submitted that, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a
grave error in confirming the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned       D
Magistrate for further investigation.
       4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original
accused has vehemently submitted that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the fact that after the accused was discharged by the learned
Magistrate, thereafter he has no jurisdiction to pass any order for further      E
investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
      4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-original accused that once the accused is
discharged by the learned Magistrate after considering the charge-sheet
and the material on record, thereafter the learned Magistrate becomes            F
functus officio and has no jurisdiction to order further investigation even
under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
       4.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-original accused that the order passed by the
learned Magistrate for further investigation after the accused is discharged     G
is even hit by Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
       4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original
accused has vehemently submitted that while passing the impugned
judgment and order confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate
for further investigation after the accused was discharged, the High Court
                                                                                 H
88            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A    has not properly appreciated and/or considered the distinction between
     the powers to be exercised by the learned Magistrate at pre-cognizance
     stage and post-cognizance stage. It is submitted that the powers which
     may be available to the Magistrate at pre-cognizance stage cannot be
     exercised at post-cognizance stage.
B          4.5 In support of his above submissions, the learned counsel
     appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has heavily relied
     upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v.
     Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537 as well as in the case of
     Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (2009) 9 SCC 129. Learned counsel
     appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has further relied
C    upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad
     Ali @ Deepak (2013) 5 SCC 762; Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya
     Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 731; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012)
     9 SCC 460 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration)
     (1997) 1 SCC 361.
D           4.6 Relying upon the afore-stated decisions of this Court, learned
     counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has
     vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate
     and confirmed by the High Court, ordering further investigation after the
     accused was discharged was wholly impermissible. Therefore, it is prayed
E    to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment
     and order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the
     learned Magistrate ordering further investigation.
            5. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate appearing
     on behalf of the respondent-State, has vehemently opposed the present
F    appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     respondent-State that as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate and
     even the High Court that on certain aspects there was no investigation
     carried out at all and no evidence was collected, which will go to the root
     of the matter and therefore having not satisfied with the manner in which
     the investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was submitted
G    and thereafter when the learned Magistrate ordered further investigation,
     the same is rightly not interfered with by the High Court.
           5.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
     behalf of the respondent-State that, as such, the learned Magistrate is
     vested with the power to order further investigation if he comes to the
H
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                                 89
        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

conclusion that the investigation was not proper and/or the investigation          A
was made in perfunctory manner and the benefit would go to the accused.
It is further submitted that the powers of the Magistrate to order further
investigation has been recognized by law under Section 173(8) of the
CrPC as well as by this Court in a catena of decisions, including the
decisions of this Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) and even in Reeta
                                                                                   B
Nag (supra). It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the learned Magistrate was justified in ordering further
investigation.
       5.2 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Kishan Lal v.
Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685, it is submitted by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State that, as observed              C
and held by this Court, learned Magistrate can take cognizance on the
basis of the materials placed on record by the investigating agency. It is
also observed that it is also permissible for the Magistrate to direct further
investigation. It is submitted that, as observed by this Court, the Magistrate
has a duty to see that the investigation is carried out in a fair manner. It       D
is submitted that it is observed that an order of further investigation can
be made at various stages including the stage of the trial, that is even
after taking cognizance of the offence.
       5.3 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Hemant Dhasmana
v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 7 SCC 536, it is further                 E
submitted that when the learned Magistrate passed an order of further
investigation for the ends of justice, the same is not required to be interfered
with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
       5.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
has also heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Sajjan Kumar            F
v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368. It is submitted
that even after the charge-sheet is filed, still the Magistrate is free to
direct the accused to appear and try the offence, even at the stage of
Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC.
      5.5 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above                  G
decisions of this Court, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
       6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the challenge
in the present appeal is to the order passed by the High Court, confirming
the order passed by the learned Magistrate of further investigation passed
                                                                                   H
90             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A    at the time/after the accused was discharged by the learned Magistrate.
     It is required to be noted that, in the present case, the investigating officer
     after concluding the investigation, submitted the report/charge-sheet
     before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter before the learned
     Magistrate was at the stage of framing of the charge, as provided under
     Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC. After considering the material on
B
     record submitted along with the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate at
     the first instance discharged the accused. However, simultaneously, while
     discharging the accused, learned Magistrate also passed an order for
     further investigation and directed the investigating officer to further
     investigate in the matter and submit the report. That part of the order, by
C    which the learned Magistrate ordered further investigation is the subject
     matter of dispute. Therefore, the short question which is posed for
     consideration by this Court is whether once the learned Magistrate passes
     an order of discharge of the accused, whether thereafter is it permissible
     for the Magistrate to order further investigation and direct the investigating
     officer to submit the report?
D
            6.1 While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisions
     of this Court on the procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate
     when the investigating officer submits the report under Section 173(2) of
     the CrPC and what are the powers of the learned Magistrate and/or
     what are the options available to the learned Magistrate at a time when
E    the investigating officer after concluding the investigation submits the
     report/challan/charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate, are required
     to be referred to and considered.
            6.2 In the celebrated judgment of this Court in the case of
     Bhagwant Singh (supra) which has been subsequently followed
F    consistently, this Court had the occasion to consider the procedure to be
     followed by the learned Magistrate and/or the options which are available
     to the learned Magistrate at the time when the report/challan/charge-
     sheet is filed by the investigating officer before him. In that judgment,
     this Court in para 4 has observed and held as under:
G           “4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of
            a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2)(i) of Section
            173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two
            different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an
            offence appears to have been committed by a particular person
H           or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three
BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                            91
       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

   things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the           A
   offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report
   and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation
   under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to
   make a further report. The report may on the other hand state
   that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been
                                                                             B
   committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate
   again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may
   accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree
   with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground
   for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue
   process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by          C
   the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156. Where, in either
   of these two situations, the Magistrate decides to take cognizance
   of the offence and to issue process, the informant is not prejudicially
   affected nor is the injured or in case of death, any relative of the
   deceased aggrieved, because cognizance of the offence is taken
                                                                             D
   by the Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that the
   case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides that there is no
   sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding
   or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for
   proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for
   proceeding against others mentioned in the first information report,      E
   the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the first
   information report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose,
   wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in
   prompt and effective action being taken on the first information
   report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions
                                                                             F
   contained in sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of
   Section 157 and sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 173, it must be
   presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing
   that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues
   process, because that would be culmination of the first information
   report lodged by him. There can. therefore, be no doubt that when,        G
   on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of
   a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the
   Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and
   issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being
   heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the
                                                                             H
92            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A          Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
           We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate
           to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section
           173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the
           proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for
           proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first
B
           information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant
           and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of
           consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of
           the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be
           given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on
C          account of the difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the
           informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid
           objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the
           action taken by the police on the first information report has to be
           communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be
           supplied to him under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 and if that
D
           be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve
           notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover,
           in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant
           cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant
           of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is
E          considered by the Magistrate.”
           6.3 In the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra), after considering catena
     of decisions of this Court, including the decisions of this Court in
     Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Reeta Nag (supra), ultimately in para 40,
     this Court concluded as under:
F          “40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various
           judgments as aforeindicated, we would state the following
           conclusions in regard to the powers of a Magistrate in terms of
           Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of
           the Code:
G          40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or
           “fresh investigation” (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of
           a police report.
           40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further investigation”
           after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the
H          Code.
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                            93
        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      40.3. The view expressed in Sub-para 40.2 above is in conformity        A
      with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant Singh
      case [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537
      : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] by a three-Judge Bench and thus in
      conformity with the doctrine of precedent.
      40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific provision         B
      therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The
      language of Section 173(2) cannot be construed so restrictively
      as to deprive the Magistrate of such powers particularly in face
      of the provisions of Section 156(3) and the language of Section
      173(8) itself. In fact, such power would have to be read into the
      language of Section 173(8).                                             C

      40.5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must receive a
      construction which would advance the cause of justice and
      legislative object sought to be achieved. It does not stand to reason
      that the legislature provided power of further investigation to the
      police even after filing a report, but intended to curtail the power    D
      of the court to the extent that even where the facts of the case
      and the ends of justice demand, the court can still not direct the
      investigating agency to conduct further investigation which it could
      do on its own.
      40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police has to       E
      seek permission of the court to continue “further investigation”
      and file supplementary charge-sheet. This approach has been
      approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such
      would support the view that we are taking in the present case.”
       6.4 In the case of Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC          F
359, it is observed by this Court that when a report forwarded by the
police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) is placed before him,
several situations arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears
to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a
case, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance     G
of the offence and issued process, or (2) may disagree with the report
and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct further investigation under
Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report.
      7. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions and even considering the relevant provisions of the CrPC,
                                                                              H
94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A    namely Sections 167(2), 173, 227 and 228 of the CrPC, what is emerging
     is that after the investigation is concluded and the report is forwarded by
     the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, the
     learned Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance
     of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report
     and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct further investigation under
B
     Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. If the
     Magistrate disagrees with the report and drops the proceedings, the
     informant is required to be given an opportunity to submit the protest
     application and thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the informant,
     the Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the proceedings
C    against the accused or not. If the learned Magistrate accepts the
     objections, in that case, he may issue process and/or even frame the
     charges against the accused. As observed hereinabove, having not
     satisfied with the investigation on considering the report forwarded by
     the police under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, the Magistrate may, at
     that stage, direct further investigation and require the police to make a
D
     further report. However, it is required to be noted that all the aforesaid
     is required to be done at the pre-cognizance stage. Once the learned
     Magistrate takes the cognizance and, considering the materials on record
     submitted along with the report forwarded by the police under Section
     173(2)(i) of the CrPC, learned Magistrate in exercise of the powers
E    under Section 227 of the CrPC discharges the accused, thereafter, it will
     not be open for the Magistrate to suo moto order for further investigation
     and direct the investigating officer to submit the report. Such an order
     after discharging the accused can be said to be made at the post-
     cognizance stage. There is a distinction and/or difference between the
     pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage and the powers to be
F
     exercised by the Magistrate for further investigation at the pre-cognizance
     stage and post-cognizance stage. The power to order further investigation
     which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage
     may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage,
     more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him. As observed
G    hereinabove, if the Magistrate was not satisfied with the investigation
     carried out by the investigating officer and the report submitted by the
     investigating officer under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, as observed
     by this Court in catena of decisions and as observed hereinabove, it was
     always open/permissible for the Magistrate to direct the investigating
     agency for further investigation and may postpone even the framing of
H
 BIKASH RANJAN ROUT v. STATE THR. THE SECY. (HOME)                              95
        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the charge and/or taking any final decision on the report at that stage.        A
However, once the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report and
the materials placed along with the report, discharges the accused, we
are afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto order the further
investigation by the investigating agency. Once the order of discharge is
passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto direct
                                                                                B
the investigating officer for further investigation and submit the report.
In such a situation, only two remedies are available: (i) a revision
application can be filed against the discharge or (ii) the Court has to wait
till the stage of Section 319 of the CrPC. However, at the same time,
considering the provisions of Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is always
open for the investigating agency to file an application for further            C
investigation and thereafter to submit the fresh report and the Court
may, on the application submitted by the investigating agency, permit
further investigation and permit the investigating officer to file a fresh
report and the same may be considered by the learned Magistrate
thereafter in accordance with law. The Magistrate cannot suo moto
                                                                                D
direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC or direct
the re-investigation into a case at the post-cognizance stage, more
particularly when, in exercise of powers under Section 227 of the CrPC,
the Magistrate discharges the accused. However, Section 173(8) of
the CrPC confers power upon the officer-in-charge of the police station
to further investigate and submit evidence, oral or documentary, after          E
forwarding the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC.
Therefore, it is always open for the investigating officer to apply for
further investigation, even after forwarding the report under sub-section
(2) of Section 173 and even after the discharge of the accused. However,
the aforesaid shall be at the instance of the investigating officer/police
                                                                                F
officer-in-charge and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto
pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges
the accused.
       7.1 In the instant case, the investigating authority did not apply for
further investigation and that the learned Magistrate suo moto passed
an order for further investigation and directed the investigating officer to    G
further investigate and submit the report, which is impermissible under
the law. Such a course of action is beyond the jurisdictional competence
of the Magistrate. Therefore, that part of the order passed by the learned
Magistrate ordering further investigation after he discharges the accused,
cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.          H
96                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A    Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
     Court confirming such an order passed by the learned Magistrate also
     deserves to be quashed and set aside. At the same time, it will always
     be open for the investigating officer to file an appropriate application for
     further investigation and undertake further investigation and submit a
     further report in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
B
            8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
     present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated
     20.08.2014 as well as that part of the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by
     the learned Magistrate directing the investigating officer for further
     investigation and submit the report, is hereby quashed and set aside.
C
            8.1 However, considering the observations made by the learned
     Magistrate and the deficiency in the investigation pointed out by the
     learned Magistrate and the ultimate goal is to book and/or punish the
     real culprit, it will be open for the investigating officer to submit a proper
     application before the learned Magistrate for further investigation and
D    conduct fresh investigation and submit the further report in exercise of
     powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and thereafter the learned
     Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own
     merits.
            9. The present appeal is allowed with the above observations and
E    the liberty reserved in favour of the investigating officer, as above.

     Nidhi Jain                                                      Appeal allowed.




F




G




H