Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sumit S/o Karan Singh Gautam, Imran S/o Abdul Haquie Turak, Ashish S/o Narendra Gajbhiye, and Firozkhaa S/o Moharamkhaa Pathan, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the learned Magistrate. The order allowed the prosecution's application to file an additional/supplementary charge-sheet. The petitioners were accused in a crime registered at Police Station Warthi, District Bhandara. The original charge-sheet was filed on 12/01/2022, but the statement of the informant, Rahul Pandurang Deshpande, dated the same day was not included. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer sought to file a supplementary charge-sheet without obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate. The petitioners contended that the Investigating Officer had not sought leave from the Magistrate for further investigation as required under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They argued that there was no material connecting them to the crime and that the informant's statement did not show any overt act on their part. They further alleged mala fide intention on the part of the Investigating Officer in implicating them. The court, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, held that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC requires prior permission from the Magistrate. Since the Investigating Officer did not obtain such leave, the order allowing the supplementary charge-sheet was invalid. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - Prior Permission - The Investigating Officer must seek leave from the Magistrate before conducting further investigation and filing supplementary charge-sheet. Failure to do so renders the supplementary charge-sheet invalid. The court quashed the order allowing supplementary charge-sheet as the IO did not obtain prior permission. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Mala Fide Investigation - Abuse of Process - The court noted that the statement of the informant dated 12/01/2022 was not filed with the original charge-sheet, indicating mala fide intention to implicate the petitioners. Such conduct vitiates the investigation. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Investigating Officer can file a supplementary charge-sheet without obtaining prior permission/leave from the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 09/09/2024 is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC requires prior permission from the Magistrate
- Supplementary charge-sheet without leave is invalid
- Mala fide investigation vitiates proceedings
