Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra @ Raju s/o. Laxman Chandane, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking a direction for re-investigation of Crime No.74/2019 (later numbered as Crime No.34/2019 in the charge-sheet) registered at Pahur Police Station on 23.03.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 120-B, 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and subsequently added Sections 302 and 201 of IPC in the charge-sheet. The petitioner claimed that the investigation was biased and that the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (original accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4) were not properly investigated. The petitioner sought re-investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) or any other special agency, excluding the local police. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the accused, opposed the petition. The court examined the issue of locus standi of the informant to seek re-investigation after the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial had commenced. The court held that the informant has no right to demand re-investigation; the power to order re-investigation lies with the court or the investigating agency under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The court further held that a writ petition for re-investigation is not maintainable when the trial is already in progress and the petitioner has alternative remedies under the CrPC. The court dismissed the petition, observing that the investigating agency has the discretion to conduct further investigation if new facts emerge, but the informant cannot dictate the course of investigation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Locus Standi - Re-investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - The informant has no right to seek re-investigation after charge-sheet is filed and trial has commenced; the power to order re-investigation lies with the court or the investigating agency, not the informant. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Re-investigation - Maintainability - Section 173(8) CrPC - A writ petition for re-investigation is not maintainable when the trial is already in progress and the petitioner has alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paras 13-15) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Informant's Rights - Section 173(8) CrPC - The informant cannot dictate the course of investigation or demand re-investigation; the investigating agency has the discretion to conduct further investigation if new facts emerge. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who is the informant in a criminal case, has the locus standi to seek re-investigation of the crime after the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the informant has no locus standi to seek re-investigation after charge-sheet and trial commencement, and the writ petition is not maintainable.
Law Points
- Locus standi of informant to seek re-investigation
- Power of court to order re-investigation after charge-sheet
- Scope of Section 173(8) CrPC
- Maintainability of writ petition for re-investigation
