Re-Investigation Directions Must Be Issued By Superior Court Like High Court; Can’t Be Issued By Magistrate: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court explained that in the case of multiple reports under Sections 173(2) and 173(8) of CrPC, it is only a superior court such as the High Court that can direct the exclusion of any of the reports for the purposes of framing of charges.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that re-investigation directions must be issued by a superior Court such as the High Court and no such directions can be issued by a Magistrate.
A Petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, and 506 (subsequently added Sections 201 & 109) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi enunciated, “For the purposes of ‘re-investigation’/’de novo investigate’ directions for the same must be issued by a superior Court such as the High Court and no such directions can be issued by a Magistrate. As regards ‘further investigation’, it is the domain of the Investigating Agency but it is desirable that prior intimation of the same is given to the Magistrate as the primary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. already stands submitted.”
The Bench explained that in the case of multiple reports under Sections 173(2) and 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), it is only a superior court such as the High Court that can direct the exclusion of any of the reports for the purposes of framing of charges.
“If not so done, it is the domain of the Trial Court to consider all the reports under Sections 173(2) Cr.P.C. and 173(8) Cr.P.C to either frame charges or discharge the accused”, it added.
Advocate Arpandeep Narula appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The Petitioner who was the initial Complainant got registered an FIR against six accused persons alleging that the accused in connivance with each other had fraudulently induced the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 42 lakhs approximately under the false pretext of securing his son a job as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Chandigarh Police with the aid of unnamed politicians and senior police officials. Later, when his son was not provided employment as promised, he sought the return of the same. The accused repaid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and sought time to repay the remaining amount. However, they did not do so and to the contrary, allegedly threatened him with false implication in cases. The Superintendent of Police filed an Affidavit stating before the High Court that an application had been moved before the Trial Court seeking permission for re-investigation.
Subsequently, the application seeking further investigation/re-investigation was dismissed by the SDJM. The accused filed a Petition in the High Court, challenging the Order and seeking inquiry into the role of the Petitioner in the alleged incident, and the same was disposed of. It was directed that the concerned Commissioner of Police consider any application seeking fair and impartial investigation. Thereafter, the ADGP directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for further investigation. It was the and the supplementary challan to the extent that the Petitioner was nominated as an accused which are under challenge before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… while ‘re-investigation’ means a ‘de novo investigation’ virtually washing off the investigation so conducted ‘further investigation’ would mean some additional evidence has been found against the existing accused or some other person is to be nominated as an accused to face Trial along with the existing accused and therefore, some additional investigation is required to be conducted.”
The Court said that an offence under Section 8 of IPC can be committed by any person who need not necessarily be a public servant and such an offence can therefore be committed by a public servant or by a private person or by a combination of the two.
“Further, question of quashing of an of an FIR would not arise where a reading of the FIR would reveal the commission of other offences though the FIR/Challan have been submitted regarding different offences for which quashing is sought”, it added.
The Court further observed that merely because there is no public servant involved does not mean that the Petitioner and accused cannot be chargesheeted for offences under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
“The petitioner can also not claim any benefit of the first and second proviso of Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act as he was not compelled to give such undue advantage and nor did he inform the investigating agency within 7 days from the date of giving such undue advantage that it was under duress or compulsion. To the contrary, he only lodged a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR when the accused did not get his son employed as an Assistant Sub Inspector with the Chandigarh Police and refused to return the money”, it also noted.
The Court elucidated that the question of quashing of the FIR would not arise for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is prima facie made out and it would be the Trial Court which shall examine the various investigation reports and come to the conclusion as to what offences, if any, are made out.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and directed the police to conduct a further investigation.
Cause Title- Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:117709)
