Magistrate Can Entertain Complainant’s Plea For Further Investigation Even After Framing Of Charge: Bombay High Court

However, the Court cautioned that such power must be exercised sparingly and only where justified by compelling circumstances.

The Court was hearing a criminal application challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which had directed further investigation at the instance of the complainant after charges had been framed in the case.

A Bench of Justice S. M. Modak examined the scope of a Magistrate’s power to order further investigation post-charge, in light of conflicting judicial precedents and the statutory framework governing criminal investigations, and held that the “complainant’s application under Section 173(8) is maintainable even after framing of charge”.

Background

The proceedings arose from a private complaint alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation and conspiracy, in relation to a series of commercial transactions between the complainant and the accused.

Pursuant to directions issued under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police investigated on multiple occasions. On two separate instances, closure reports were submitted, opining that the dispute was civil in nature. Both reports were rejected, and a process was issued against the accused.

After charges were framed, the complainant moved an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking further investigation on the ground that several crucial documents had not been traced and certain accused persons had not been arraigned. The Magistrate allowed the application, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Section 173(8), which preserves the power of the police to conduct further investigation even after submission of a report.

The Court observed that the provision is couched in negative terms and does not prohibit further investigation after the filing of the charge-sheet. It noted that while investigation is the exclusive domain of the police, the Magistrate exercises supervisory jurisdiction to ensure fairness in the investigative process.

After analysing decisions of the Supreme Court, including Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya, and Rampal Gautam, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on entertaining a complainant’s application for further investigation after framing of charge. The determinative factors are the stage of the trial, the purpose for which further investigation is sought, and whether such investigation is necessary to secure a fair trial.

The Court clarified that while Amrutbhai disapproved further investigation at the fag end of the trial, Vinubhai recognised the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation at the pre-trial stage in appropriate cases, emphasising the constitutional requirement of a fair and just investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Just because charge is framed, it does not mean that the Magistrate can shut his eyes to certain lacunae pointed out in investigation. Police has every right and if Police themselves at fault, who will point out? It is the Complainant only who can point out the same. Even Court is having power to alter the charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. at any stage prior to the judgment. So there are provisions in the Code which are incorporated in securing fair trial to both the accused as well as to the Complainant”, the Court explained.

At the same time, the Court cautioned that the Magistrate’s powers are not co-extensive with those of constitutional courts and must not be exercised mechanically by merely relying on precedents without applying the correct ratio to the facts of the case.

Turning to the facts at hand, the Court noted that the police had already conducted an investigation twice and addressed the very issues raised by the complainant. It was observed that the Magistrate failed to record cogent reasons demonstrating any serious lacuna or miscarriage of justice warranting further investigation at that stage.

The Court further held that dissatisfaction with the outcome of the investigation, by itself, cannot justify repeated investigative directions, particularly when the trial had already commenced, and the issues raised could be tested during evidence.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Magistrate’s order directing further investigation and dismissed the complainant’s application. It clarified that the trial court was at liberty to proceed with the trial from the appropriate stage in accordance with the law, and that any lacuna emerging during evidence could be addressed through permissible statutory mechanisms.

The criminal application was allowed.

Cause Title: Shri Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantri v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57886)

Appearances

Applicant: Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda with Advocate Karan L. Jain

Respondents: H. J. Dedhia, Additional Public Prosecutor, Advocates Subhash Jha, Siddharth Jha, Sumeet Upadhaya, Ashish Saxena and Chetan Gogawale

Click here to read/download Judgment