Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.24 seconds)
Abhay Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 December, 2023 cites

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

"42. There is no good reason in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon the process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.19; Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka20; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali21; and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab22; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab23, having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate, who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 26 August, 2010

Further, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) is a judgment that distinguishes between further investigation and re-investigation and holds that a superior court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice if it considers necessary, direct investigation de-novo, whereas a Magistrate's power is limited to ordering further investigation. Since the present case is not concerned with re-investigation, this judgment also cannot take us much further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 511 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next