Holding

Further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and the trial court may alter or add charges under Section 216, and concerns of trial delay cannot bar such actions.

Summary

The appellant, Hasanbai Valibhai Qureshi, filed a writ petition alleging that the FIR in a communal clash originally listed offences under Sections 395 and 120‑B IPC, but these were later deleted by the police, enabling the accused to obtain bail. He claimed the investigating agency was biased, influenced by a local MLA, and sought a re‑investigation by an independent body. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition, holding that further investigation could be pursued under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the trial court could supervise it. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the investigating agency or the court could be restrained from further investigation on the ground of trial delay, and whether charges could be altered during trial. Relying on Section 173(8) and Section 216 of the CrPC, the Court held that the police may conduct further investigation even after cognizance, and the trial court may add or alter charges before judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that concerns of delay cannot bar further investigation when truth and substantive justice demand it.

Issues considered

Whether the investigating agency may conduct further investigation after the court has taken cognizance, notwithstanding possible delay of the trial.
Whether the trial court can alter or add charges during the trial under Section 216 of the CrPC.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing to order an independent re‑investigation on the ground of alleged bias in the police investigation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(8), s. 216, s. 228, s. 240

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureFurther InvestigationFIR amendmentCharge alterationSection 173Section 216Bias in prosecutionTrial delay

Judgment

HASANBHAI VALIBHAI QUERESHI •
~
A v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

APRIL 5, 2004

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.)
B

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Ss. 173(8)-Furlher inwstigation-lnvestigation stated lo be defective-
Prosecution agency slated to be tainted with suspicion and visible leaning in
c favour of accused-Prosecution resisting fi1rther investigation on the ground
that it would delay process of trial-Held, hands of investigating agency or
the court should not be tied down on the ground that fi1rther investigation may
delay the trial-De hors any direction from court, ii is open to police to
conduct proper investigation even after court took cognizance of any offence
D on strength of a police report earlier submitled.

S. 216-Addition to or alteration of charge-FIR-Prosecution agency
stated to have wrongly deleted certain sections of!PC ji-om FIR-Held, during )
trial the court, in appropriate case, is empowered to add or alter a charge as
the exigencies of the case warrant.
E Appellant-complainant filed a writ petition in the High Court stating
that shops of the persons belonging to his community were looted and set
ablaze by persons of another community. It was stated that initially in the
FIR various offences including under ss. 395 and 120-B of the Penal Code,
1860 were mentioned, but later sections 395 and 120-B !PC were deleted
~
F from the FIR, as a result of which the accused managed to get bail. It was
)\
prayed that directions be issued for investigation by an independent
agency.

The High Court declined to interfere holding that for further
investigation, if found necessary, the remedy was available in the Code of
G Criminal Procedure and the same could be carried out under the
supervision of the trial court, for which the complainant could take
appropriate steps. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal. )r

It was contended for the appellant that the role of the prosecution
agency from the beginning was tainted with suspicion and visible leaning
H 762
H.V. QUERESHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 763

in favour of the accused persons; that there was no urgency to seek deletion A
of ss.395 and 120-B IPC without full and complete investigation; and that
the complainant could approach the trial court was no reason to gloss over
partisan approach and attitude of the prosecution agency.

On the directions of the Court, the l)irector General of Police
submitted a report stating that the trial court had framed charges against B
three accused u/s 120-B IPC. As regards desirability of further
investigation, it was stated that since the Session case was fixed for day to
day hearing, direction for further investigation would prove infructuous
and would only delay process of trial.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: I.I. The hands of the investigating agency or the court should
not be tied down on the ground that further investigation may delay the
trial, as the ultimate object is to arrive at the truth and do real and
substantive as well as effective justice. Sub-s.(8) of s.173 of the Code of D
Criminal Procedure,1973 permits further investigation, and even dehors
any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct
proper investigation, even after the court took cognizance of any offence
on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if, as
in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of
the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. E
1767-B-CI

1.2. When defective investigation comes to light during the course
of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so
permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in the
instant case that police should inform the court and seek formal permission F
to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead· of
being silent over the matter keeping in view onlY. the need for an early
trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during the
course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary
as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. Therefore, if there G
is necessity for further investigation.the same can certainly be done as
prescribed by law. 1767-D-FI

Om Prakash Narang and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.). AIR (1979) SC
1791, relied on.
H
I
x
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A 2. Section 216 of the Code appearing in Chapter XVII clearly
stipulates that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before
judgment is pronounced. Therefore, if during trial the trial court on a
consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of
the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or
B alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so and there can be
no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or
necessitate. 1766-F; 767-AI

Kahtila/ Chandu/a/ Mehta v. Stale of Maharashtra, AIR (1970) SC 359,
relied on.
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
42 l of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 8.11.2003 of the Gujarat High
Court in S. Crl. A. No. l 083 of 2003.
D Jitendra Malkan, M. Iqbal Sheikh, Ms. Priya Kiran, P. Ramesh Kumar
and Ms. Aparna Bhat for the Appellant.

V. Madhukar, Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu and Ms. Hemantika
Wahi for the Respondents.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARI.HT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The appellant who is the original complainant in the case relating to
F FIR NO. 134/2003 in the police station, Sub District, Veraval, district Junagadh
calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge
of the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appella.nt.

Main prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of appropriate writ for
G re-investigation by an independent agency. The prayer was made alleging
that the local police had succumbed to the pressure exercised by local MLA
and the investigation was not carried out in a straight forward manner. It was
alleged that on 23.9.2003 around 12.30 a.m. persons belonging to a particular
community carried deadly weapons and combustible materials and pursuant
to the common object of an unlawful assembly caused destruction of shops
H belonging to persons of another community, by breaking them open and
H.V. QUER[Slll r. STATE OF GUJARAT IPASA YAT. J.] 765
setting them ablaze. There was also large scale looting of articles. About 53 A
persons were arrested. Initially. in the FIR various offences including Sections
395 and I 20B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were noted and mentioned by the
police officials. But strangely after a few hours of the registration of the FIR
wherein the aforesaid offences were mentioned, Sections 395 and 120B were B
deleted by the prosecuting agency and because of such deletion the accused
persons managed to get bail. The prayer in the aforesaid circumstances was
for investigation by an independent investigating agency. It was brought to
the notice of the High Court that a bare perusal of the statements clearly
indicate the applicability of those provisions and commission of such offences,
contrary to what has been stated by the prosecuting agency. c
The High Court noted that specific allegations were made regarding the
biased approach of the police officials under the influence of local MLA. The
petition was resisted on the ground that on detailed investigation it was
noticed that the offences relatable to Sections 395 and 120B IPC were not
made out and, therefore, were deleted. Such a course is permissible in law. D
The High Court was of the view that if further investigation is necessary the
remedy is available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code') and further investigation can be carried out under the supervision of
the trial Court. Moreover, it was held the police was not the ultimate authority
who can decide as to which sections are applicable. Appropriate steps can be E
taken by the complainant along with the prosecuting agency before the trial
Court. Since such remedy was available under the Code, the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution')
was not entertained.

;J. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted p
J< that the role of the prosecuting agency from the beginning is tainted with
suspicion and visible leaning in favour of the accused persons. There was no
urgency to seek deletion of Sections 395 and 1208 IPC without full and
complete investigation. It cannot be left to the ipse dixit of the investigating
officer. That the complainant could approach the trial Court is no reason to
gloss over partisan approach and attitude of the prosecuting agency. which G
was obliged to act independently and ensure that the guilty are brought before
Court for appropriate offences though it is for the Court ultimately to find
whether they are guilty or not. The High Court has failed to notice that the
prosecuting agency was showing unusual interest in protecting the accused
persons and, therefore, the scope of the complainant moving the trial Court H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R

A along with the prosecuting agency is a remote possibility. The prosecuting .....•
agency in the circumstances cannot expected to be reasonable or co-operate,
fairly and just in order to effectively enforce and maintain law and order.

The respondents supported the judgment of the High Court stating that
no infirmity exists in the view taken by the High Court to warrant interference.
B
By order dated 19.3.2004 direction was given tq the Director General
of Police, Gujarat to submit a report as to whether the action taken by the
investigating officer was proper and whether there was need for further ....
investigation. In the report submitted by the Director General of Police, it has
been fairly accepted that the deletion of Section I208 IPC does not appear
c to be proper. In any event the Court of Additional Sessions Judge of the I0th
Fast-track Court at Veraval has framed charge in Sessions Case No.64/2003
on 22.3.2004 against three of the accused persons under Section 1208 IPC.
It has been stated that though retention of Section 1208 !PC was desirable,
but nothing more is required to be done in view of the fact that the Sessions
D Judge has already framed charge under the section. It has been stated that
there were few lapses in investigation and inquiry is being caused i.gainst the
investigation officer with a view to initiate suitable departmental action. So
far as the desirability of further investigation is concerned, it is stated that the 1
case has been fixed for day-to-day hearing from 5.4.2004 to 15.4.2004 and
if further investigation is done, it would prove infructuous and would only
E delay process of trial unnecessarily.

Section 228 of the Code in Chapter XVII and Section 240 in Chapter
XIX deal with framing of the charge during trial before a Court of Sessions
and trial of Warrant -cases by Magistrates respectively. There is a scope of
alteration of the charge during trial on the basis of materials brought on
F record. Section 216 of the Code appearing in Chapter XVII clearly stipulates "·.
that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment
is pronounced. Whenever such alteration or addition is made the same is to
be read out and informed to the accused.

G In Ka11tilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1970) SC
359) it was held that the Code gives ample power to the Courts to alter or
amend a charge whether by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court provided
that the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced ,,.
either by keeping him in the dark about the charge or in not giving him a full
opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him on
H the charge finally preferred against him. Section 2 I 7 deals with recall, if
, H.V. QUERESHI v. STA TE OF GUJARAT [PASAYA T. .I.] 767
'r·
necessary of witnesses when the charge is altered. A
Therefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad
probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents
produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary,
it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the
exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate. B

'I'
Coming to the question whether a further investigation is warranted,
the bands of the investigating agency or the Court should not be tied down
on the ground that further investigation may delay the trial, as the ultimate
object is to arrive at the truth.
c
Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation,
and even dehors any direction from the Court as such, it is open to the police
to conduct proper investigation, even after the Court took cognizance of any
offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so,
if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied D
--' of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted.
. ,, In Om Prakash Narang and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1979) SC
1791) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether
ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When
defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured E
by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be
desirable and all the more so in this case, that police should inform the Court
and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts
come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the
-I need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found
• during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and F
necessary as an expeditious disposal of the mater by the Courts. In view of
the aforesaid position in law if th~re is necessity for further investigation the
same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there
may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the way of

..
~
"'
further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and G
do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case .

The appeal is accordingly finally disposed of, on the above terms.

R.P. Appeal disposed of. H