Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rabia Khan, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay in Special Case No.83 of 2014. The impugned order rejected two applications filed by the petitioner: Exhibit 204 seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) into the cause of death of the victim, and Exhibit 209 seeking to summon additional witnesses. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for further investigation. The background of the case involves the death of a person, which was initially investigated by the Juhu Police Station and later by the CBI. The CBI filed a charge sheet, and the trial was at an advanced stage with several witnesses already examined. The petitioner, claiming to be the mother of the deceased, contended that the investigation was incomplete and that crucial witnesses were not examined. The Special Judge rejected the applications on the ground that the trial had commenced, evidence of key witnesses had been recorded, and the applications were filed belatedly. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Special Judge had correctly exercised his discretion. The court noted that the power under Section 173(8) CrPC is discretionary and cannot be exercised mechanically, especially when the trial is ongoing. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The court also declined to direct the formation of an SIT, as the investigation had already been conducted by the CBI and the trial was in progress.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Further Investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - Power of Special Judge - The Special Judge (CBI) rejected applications for further investigation and summoning additional witnesses in a pending trial. The High Court held that the Special Judge had correctly exercised discretion, as the applications were filed after the trial had commenced and the evidence of key witnesses had been recorded. The court found no illegality or perversity in the order warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Article 226/227 of the Constitution - The High Court reiterated that the power of judicial review over interlocutory orders of a trial court is limited. Unless the order is patently illegal, perverse, or suffers from jurisdictional error, the High Court will not interfere. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Judge (CBI) rejecting the petitioner's applications under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation and for summoning additional witnesses is liable to be quashed and set aside, and whether a direction for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for further investigation into the cause of death of the victim should be issued.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Special Judge (CBI) dated 16.09.2021. The court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's discretion and declined to direct the formation of a Special Investigation Team.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973 (CrPC) Section 173(8)
- further investigation
- power of Special Judge
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- scope of interference with trial court orders
