Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel . on 1 May, 2015

Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant

                                                 1

  ITEM NO.16                             COURT NO.5                SECTION IIB

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                 No(s).     3338/2015

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/04/2015
  in SCRLA No. 2268/2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
  Ahmedabad)


  AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                VERSUS

  SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS.                                  Respondent(s)


  (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
  judgment and permission to place addl. documents on record and
  interim relief and office report)


  Date : 01/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.


  CORAM :                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT


  For Petitioner(s)                Mr. Sanjay Hegde, senior Adv.
                                   Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, Adv.
                                   Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.
                                   Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR

  For Respondent(s)


                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                             O R D E R

It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the High Court has fallen into error by placing reliance on the authority in Reeta Nag vs. State of West Signature Not Verified Bengal & Ors. [(2009) 9 SCC 129].

Learned senior counsel would submit that the said decision has been commented upon in Vinay Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.05.01 17:07:13 IST Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors. [(2013 (5) SCC 762]. Reason:

Learned counsel has drawn our attention to paragraphs 27 to 29. They read as under :

“27. In some judgments of this Court, a view has been advanced, (amongst others in the case of Reeta Nag v State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2009) 9 SCC 129] Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Others [(2009) 11 SCC 299] and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1997) 1 SCC 361]), that a Magistrate cannot suo moto direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code or direct re-investigation into a case on account of the bar contained in Section 167(2) of the Code, and that a Magistrate could direct filing of a charge sheet where the police submits a report that no case had been made out for sending up an accused for trial. The gist of the view taken in these cases is that a Magistrate cannot direct reinvestigation and cannot suo moto direct further investigation.

28. However, having given our considered thought to the principles stated in these judgments, we are of the view that the Magistrate before whom a report under Section 173(2) of the Code is filed, is empowered in law to direct ‘further investigation’ and require the police to submit a further or a supplementary report. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) has, in no uncertain terms, stated that principle, as afore-noticed.

29. The contrary view taken by the Court in the cases of Reeta Nag (supra) and Randhir Singh (supra) do not consider the view of this Court expressed in Bhagwant Singh (supra). The decision of the Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) in regard to the issue in hand cannot be termed as an obiter. The ambit and scope of the power of a magistrate in terms of Section 173 of the Code was squarely debated before that Court and the three Judge Bench concluded as afore-noticed.

Similar views having been taken by different Benches of this Court while following Bhagwant Singh (supra), are thus squarely in line with the doctrine of precedence. To some extent, the view expressed in Reeta Nag (supra), Ram Naresh (supra) and Randhir Singh (supra), besides being different on facts, would have to be examined in light of the principle of stare decisis.” Ordinarily, we would have not undertaken the exercise but Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel, has pointed out that the judgment passed by the High Court is directed to be circulated amongst all  3 the JMFCs and Sessions Judges and, therefore, the issue requires to be clarified.

Issue notice returnable within eight weeks.

There shall be stay of further proceedings in Criminal Case No.4293 of 2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar till the next date of hearing.

    (Gulshan Kumar Arora)                  (H.S. Parasher)
        Court Master                         Court Master