Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sanghshil Bhagat, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 09/10/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2014. The impugned order rejected the applicant's application (Exh.74) filed under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for reinvestigation of the case. The applicant contended that his sister, Bharti, did not commit suicide but was murdered by her husband, respondent No.2. The investigating agency had prosecuted respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (abetment of suicide). The applicant argued that the investigation was improper and did not consider the possibility of homicidal death. Specifically, he submitted that the prosecution case that Bharti committed suicide by injecting poison intravenously was impossible because self-injection through an intravenous syringe requires locating a proper vein, which cannot be done without assistance. He argued that the learned Sessions Judge committed a serious illegality in not directing reinvestigation. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the application. The court observed that the application under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was for reinvestigation, but Section 173(8) only permits further investigation, not reinvestigation. Moreover, the trial was at the stage of final arguments, and the application appeared to be an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution case. The court held that the trial court's order was not illegal or perverse, and no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out. The application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Reinvestigation vs Further Investigation - Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - The application under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sought reinvestigation, but the provision only permits further investigation. The court held that the trial court correctly refused the application as the trial was at the stage of final arguments and the application appeared to be an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution case. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Powers - The High Court declined to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the trial court's order was not illegal or perverse. The application for reinvestigation was filed belatedly when the trial was almost concluded, and no case for reinvestigation was made out. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can direct reinvestigation when the trial court has refused to order reinvestigation under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the trial is at the stage of final arguments.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, holding that the trial court's order was not illegal or perverse, and no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out.
Law Points
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to direct reinvestigation when trial is at final stage
- application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is for further investigation not reinvestigation
- power under Section 173(8) is with police not court
- court can only direct further investigation in limited circumstances
