Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a criminal writ petition filed by two petitioners, Shri Shivaji Pralhad Pankhule and Shri Jagannath Pralhad Pankhule, challenging the reinvestigation and supplementary chargesheet submitted by the State CID in a murder case arising out of Crime No. 162/2002 registered at Badnapur Police Station. The first petitioner had filed a complaint on 16.11.2002 alleging that his brother, Ramaprasad Pankule, was murdered by respondent nos. 8 to 10. The local police investigated and filed a chargesheet on 9.12.2002 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as Sessions Case No. 165/2002. Subsequently, respondent nos. 6 and 7 wrote a letter dated 3.12.2002 to the Home Minister of Maharashtra, who was also the Deputy Chief Minister, requesting a detailed enquiry by the State CID. On 23.1.2003, a Desk Officer in the Home Department communicated to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, that the crime be investigated by the State CID. Thereafter, on 30.7.2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna, seeking permission for reinvestigation. The Magistrate allowed the application the same day. The State CID then conducted investigation and filed a supplementary chargesheet on 13.6.2005, which led to the registration of Sessions Case No. 62/2005. In the supplementary chargesheet, the persons shown as accused in the original chargesheet were now shown as witnesses, and some witnesses became accused. The petitioners discovered the transfer of investigation only after the supplementary chargesheet was filed. They filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of the subsequent investigation and supplementary chargesheet, raising objections on four grounds: first, that Section 173(8) only allows further investigation, not reinvestigation; second, the Magistrate had no power to permit reinvestigation; third, further investigation can only be conducted by the same agency and not a different one like CID; fourth, the Minister had no authority to transfer investigation or order reinvestigation. The State respondents filed a reply admitting the letter to the Minister and the application to the Magistrate but denied that the Minister ordered transfer, and contended that the application sought further investigation. Respondent nos. 6 to 10 were served but did not appear. The court raised three primary questions: whether fresh investigation or reinvestigation can be permitted under Section 173(8) by a Magistrate, whether a Minister can transfer investigation, and under what circumstances and by whom investigation can be transferred. The court also framed five specific points for determination. The judgment is incomplete as the provided text ends abruptly before the court's analysis and final decision; the textual extract covers only the preliminary factual background, arguments, and framing of issues.
Issue of Consideration
Whether fresh investigation/reinvestigation can be permitted under Section 173(8) CrPC by a Magistrate, whether a Minister can order transfer of investigation, and under what circumstances and by whom can investigation be transferred
Law Points
- Section 173(8) CrPC permits only further investigation
- not reinvestigation
- Magistrate has no power to order reinvestigation under Section 173(8) CrPC
- transfer of investigation is governed by the Code and not by executive orders
- a Minister cannot order transfer of investigation
- reinvestigation by a different agency is impermissible
- fresh investigation or reinvestigation is permissible only under certain circumstances and by competent court
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 6
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.320 OF 2005
Shri Shivaji Pralhad Pankhule, Shri Jagannath Pralhad Pankhule
The State of Maharashtra, Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Aurangabad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Aurangabad, Shri Sahebrao N.Kharat, Dr.Panditrao Dhanore, Shri Lukas Gunaji Ghorpade, Shri Vishnu Sitaram Wagh, Vishnu Gangaram Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the reinvestigation and supplementary chargesheet in a murder case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashment of the subsequent investigation done by State CID and the supplementary chargesheet filed pursuant to it.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the reinvestigation was illegally ordered by the Home Minister and permitted by the Magistrate, resulting in a supplementary chargesheet that falsely implicated the petitioners and turned the original accused into witnesses.
Previous Decisions
Rule granted and stay of proceedings in both Sessions Cases (Sessions Case No. 165/2002 and Sessions Case No. 62/2005) on 2006-06-08.
Issues
Whether fresh investigation or reinvestigation can be permitted under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, and that too by the Magistrate.
Whether the investigation of a crime can be transferred under the orders of the Minister.
Under what circumstances the investigation of a crime can be transferred from one agency to another and it is whose competence to transfer such investigation.
Whether the IInd J.M.F.C., Jalna, had power or authority to grant permission to reinvestigate Crime No. 162/2002.
When the local police had already investigated and filed a chargesheet, what necessitated reinvestigation.
Why the subsequent investigation was transferred to State CID when initial investigation was done by local police.
Whether the learned Minister had any power or authority to transfer the investigation from local police to State CID when chargesheet had already been filed.
If the respondents contend that the Minister did not order investigation by State CID, then who ordered it.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that under Section 173(8) CrPC, only further investigation is permissible, not reinvestigation.
Petitioners contended that the JMFC had no power or authority to permit reinvestigation.
Further investigation can only be carried out by the same investigating agency that conducted the initial investigation, not by a different agency like CID.
The Minister, merely on a complaint, had no authority to direct reinvestigation or transfer the investigation to State CID.
State respondents admitted the letter to the Minister and the application to the Magistrate but denied that the Minister directed transfer; they claimed the application was for further investigation, not reinvestigation.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition raises the following questions: (i) whether fresh investigation or re investigation can be permitted under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, and that too by the Magistrate. ? (ii) whether the investigation of a crime can be transferred under the orders of the Minister. ? (iii) under what circumstances the investigation of a crime can be transferred from one agency to another and it is whose competence to transfer such investigation ?
It is the contention of the petitioners that only after filing of such chargesheet, it was revealed to them that the investigation in the said case was transferred to State C.I.D.
The petitioners have objected the acts of respondent nos. 1 to 3 in relation to Crime No.162/2002 ... on four counts. First that, under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, what is permissible is “further investigation”, and not “re investigation”.
The JMFC, without any power or authority permited reinvestigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
The then learned Minister of Maharashtra, merely on a complaint received to him from respondent no.6 took a decision to direct reinvestigation in the aforesaid crime and transfered the investigation to State C.I.D.
Procedural History
Crime No.162/2002 registered at Badnapur Police Station on 2002-11-16 based on complaint of petitioner no.1 alleging murder of his brother by respondent nos. 8 to 10. Local police filed chargesheet on 2002-12-09 before JMFC, Jalna, under Sections 302/34 IPC. Case committed to Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.165/2002. On 2002-12-03, respondent nos. 6 and 7 wrote to Home Minister seeking investigation by State CID. Desk Officer on 2003-01-23 communicated to ADGP CID to conduct investigation through State CID. Deputy SP CID applied under Section 173(8) CrPC before JMFC on 2003-07-30 seeking permission for reinvestigation; allowed same day. State CID filed supplementary chargesheet on 2005-06-13, giving rise to Sessions Case No.62/2005. Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No.320 of 2005 challenging the reinvestigation and supplementary chargesheet. On 2006-06-08, High Court granted Rule and stayed proceedings in both Sessions Cases. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Minister) deleted by court order dated 2005-08-05. Respondent nos. 6 to 10 served but did not appear. Matter heard and judgment reserved on 2014-06-26, pronounced on 2014-07-23.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 173(8)
