ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to quash the order dated 05/06/2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 53/2008, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for keeping the said Sessions Trial in abeyance on the ground that the C.I.D. has taken over the investigation of the case.
3. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that an FIR being Chandil P.S. Case No. 60/2007 was registered under Section 302/201 IPC on the Fardbeyan of Chaukidar Niwaran Mahli wherein it is alleged that on 03/05/2007 the said Chaukidar got information at 9.00 a.m. that a dead body was lying in front of I.B.P. Petrol Pump in village Ashabani at NH-33. The dead body was identified on the basis of the Identity Card found in his pocket, as Suresh Singh, resident of A-302, Monika Apartment, Jaidev Path, Bailey Road, Patna. On enquiry nobody could identify the deceased. The deceased was found to have been killed by causing three sharp cut injuries on his head.
4. According to the counter affidavit, filed by the State, in course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner and Smt. Anupma Singh, the wife of the brother-in-law of the deceased, was found. The statement of Smt. Anita Singh, widow of the deceased was recorded. In her statement, she categorically stated that on 01/05/2007 the petitioner had called on the deceased Suresh Singh on telephone and has asked him to come to Jamshedpur for discussion and settlement of the accounts, which the petitioner had refused initially. The petitioner denied that he had any talk with the deceased on 2nd May 2007, when he boarded the train at Patna in the morning and also when he was about to reach Tatanagar Railway Station. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's talk with the deceased was confirmed in the printout of the mobile phone number of the petitioner and the deceased. Moreover, the widow of the deceased Anita Singh in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, stated that the petitioner was not interested in returning the money taken, therefore, the petitioner alongwith his brother Ramadhar Singh and nephew Munna singh @ Rahul Singh had murdered Suresh Singh. The petitioner had denied at the earlier stage of investigation regarding his business relationship with the deceased and regarding taking of loan to the tune of Rs. 30-35 lakhs from the deceased but lateron it was established in the investigation on the basis of the documents that he had taken loan from the deceased and was paying the interest regularly in the bank account of the deceased. It has also come in the statement of Smt. Anita Singh that the deceased Suresh Singh had kept a diary containing account of loan and cheques given by the petitioner in lieu of the loan in his Briefcase before leaving the house at Patna to Jamshedpur and that particular diary and cheques were missing when the dead body was found in the N.H.-33.
It is also stated in the counter affidavit that from the Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain mapping tests, the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of Suresh Singh was confirmed. Accordingly, charge sheet was submitted by the police after completion of the investigation against the petitioner and others and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. According to the petitioner, even after submission of the charge sheet so many questions remained unanswered before the investigating agency and, accordingly, in order to get the true facts unearth, the Director General and Inspector General of Police issued a letter vide memo No. 553 dated 04/03/2008, addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Jharkhand, Ranchi requesting therein to get the aforesaid Chandil P.S. Case No. 60/2007 investigated by C.I.D. and pursuant to that the investigation of the case was handed over to the C.I.D.
6. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer of the C.I.D. filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, stating therein that he has been ordered to reinvestigate the case and, therefore, he was seeking permission from the Court for further investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 22/05/2008 (Annexure-5) noticing all the facts, observed that Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. empowers the police for further investigation and, therefore, no permission of the Court was required in this regard. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, observed that since the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions, necessary information be given to the Sessions Court.
Before the Sessions Court, two petitions were filed on behalf of the accused persons, i.e. petitioner, one petition for time for filing a petition for discharge and another with a prayer that the Sessions Trial be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the investigation of the case by the C.I.D.
7. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 05/06/2008, rejected the said prayer for keeping the Sessions Trial in abeyance on the ground that the charge sheet has now, been submitted, cognizance has already been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is fixed for hearing on the point of charge and, therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction to stay the trial of the case.
8. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since further investigation of the case has been handed over to the C.I.D. and, as such, continuation of the session's trial till the pendency of the investigation would be illegal and unjustified. He further submitted that after investigation, C.I.D. may come to a different conclusion and may file charge sheet against other persons and, therefore, in such a situation, the Sessions Judge ought to have kept the Sessions Trial in abeyance till the conclusion of the investigation by the C.I.D.
Mr. Mazumdar by citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported in : AIR2008SC1052 ' has submitted that carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge sheet is a statutory right of the police.
9. As I have already noticed above that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and the relevant statements made in the counter affidavit have already been taken note of by me in earlier paragraphs of this order.
10. The informant namely Smt. Anita Singh, i.e. the widow of the deceased Suresh Singh has suo motu appeared through her counsel by filing Vakalatnama. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel on her behalf.
11. By placing reliance on the decisions in the case of 'Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar and Ors. repotted in (2008) 5 SCC 413' and State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported in : AIR2008SC1052 ' and in the case of 'Radhika Raman Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in ' Mr. Kashyap submitted that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for stay of the trial during the pendency of further investigation. He further submitted that when charge sheet was already submitted by the police then there was no occasion for the Director General of Police to hand over the case to the C.I.D. for further investigation. He also submitted that the C.I.D. cannot reinvestigate the case afresh when the local police already submitted charge sheet in this case.
12. Considering the facts stated above and the submissions made by the parties, now let us examine the provisions of law and the decisions on the point, raised in this application.
13. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about the report of the police officer on completion of investigation. Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 envisages that as soon as the investigation is completed, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating the facts mentioned in Sub-clause (a) to (f). Sub-section (8) of Section 173 envisages as follows:
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2).
14. Therefore, from bare perusal of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that the police has statutory right to carry out further investigation in a case under this provision and the police can exercise such right when fresh information come to light and for that, there is no requirement of prior permission of the Court concerned for further investigation.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported in : AIR2008SC1052 ', cited on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of informant, has held in para-9 of its judgment as follows:
Indisputably, the Law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the Police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of 'Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in : 2004CriLJ2018 ' has held as under:
The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. Section 173(8) CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of 'Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar and Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 413', the other case relied on by the informant, after noticing Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has held that-
From the plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigation under Sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation.
In the said decision the Supreme Court relied on one another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala reported in : 1998CriLJ2897 ' wherein it was held that-
The dictionary meaning of 'further' (when used as an adjective) is 'additional; more; supplemental'. 'Further' investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that Sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a 'further' report or reports and not fresh report or reports regarding the 'further' evidence obtained during such investigation.
18. The 3rd decision cited by and on behalf of the informant is the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Radhika Raman Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in ' In this case the facts were that the local police had submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 376, 386 and 120B IPC and on the basis of that cognizance of the offence under the said section were taken by the Magistrate. Subsequently, the C.I.D. took up the investigation and submitted final report finding the case to be maliciously false. In that situation, this Court held that even if the final report was submitted by the C.I.D. that did not cut any ice and on that ground, order taking cognizance cannot be said to be illegal or invalid in any manner. The plea of the petitioner in that case that the continuation of the criminal prosecution alter submission of the final report by the C.I.D. was an abused of the process of the Court was not accepted and rejected. It was also observed that what would be value of the final report submitted by the C.I.D. shall be considered by the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial.
19. On consideration of the facts stated above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions noticed above, I come to the conclusion that Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to the police for further investigation into the matter in which it has already submitted charge sheet. In the garb of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. a fresh or reinvestigation of the case cannot be made in a case in which final form has already been submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. No doubt the police can make further investigation in the case and if any additional facts comes in light, he may submit supplementary charge sheet in a given case if any such situation so arise.
20. In the present case, I find that the police, after completion of investigation, have already submitted charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 302, 201 IPC and the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Though by Annexure-4 dated 08/05/2008 an order hat; been issued for handing over the investigation of Chandil P S. Case No. 60/2007 dated 03/05/2007 registered under Section 302/201 IPC to the C.I.D. but by that itself the C.I.D. cannot claim to reinvestigate the case afresh which according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, is not permissible under the law but it has jurisdiction to make further investigation and if any additional facts is found, he can submit a supplementary final form to the Court concerned. In case the CID submits any supplementary final form before the Sessions Judge where the present Sessions Trial is pending, then the Sessions Judge, if the occasion so arises, may after consideration of the report submitted by the CID, may pass an order in accordance with law including the order of alteration of charge.
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Rajesh and Ors. v. Ramdeo and Ors. reported in : (2001)10SCC759 '.
21. I further hold that for further investigation of a case, in which the final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, the police or the investigating agency under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can make further investigation and for that prior permission of the Court concerned is not required.
22. There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the trial of a case in which the police has already submitted final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. can be stayed or can be kept in abeyance even after the investigating agency has taken up the further investigation in the matter under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
23. In view of the discussions and findings above, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused to stay the sessions trial or to keep the same in abeyance till the C.I.D. completes the investigation.
Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.