In Crim. Appeal No.1768 of 2022-SC- Powers u/s 482 CrPC are not unlimited; High Court cannot issue directions to investigate case only from particular angle: Supreme Court
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & Aniruddha Bose [12-10-2022]

Read Order: DEVENDRA NATH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, October 14, 2022: When the wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482 CrPC are recognised for ordering further investigation or reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has observed.  

The Division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose dismissed the instant appeal instituted to challenge the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Division bench was of the view that the present one was such a case of exceptional and special features where the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation, particularly qua the role of the appellant. Thus, the principal part of the order impugned, directing further investigation, in the view of this Court, called for no interference. 

The  petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the  third respondent against the order dated June 21, 2016 as passed by the ACJM, whereby, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  on the allegations against the third respondent  of misappropriation of stocks worth Rs. 16,99,648 from the godown of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation  during the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The  High Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the police to further investigate the case in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC regarding the allegations against the appellant and to seek the report within a period of three months. However, it rejected to intervene with the impugned order.

The order aforesaid was questioned by the appellant on the ground that investigation was the prerogative of the investigating agency/officer and no mandate could be issued to the Magistrate so as to usurp such powers to investigate. It was also submitted that the impugned was passed directly in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was extended by the High Court to the appellant.

Two principal questions that were posed  for determination in this appeal.The first obe was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, was justified in issuing directions to the Magistrate to order further investigation though, the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet had been filed and who had taken cognizance, did not adopt any such process; and second was whether the High Court was justified in passing the order impugned without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In view of the same, the Court took into account Section 482 of CrPC.

In pursuance of the same, the Court noted that it was  indisputable that as per the scheme of CrPC, formation of an opinion as to whether the person is to be put on trial has been left to the officer in-charge of a police station; and where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the result of investigation in the form of report filed before him is not satisfactory, he may also order investigation in terms of Sections 156(3) and/or 173(8) CrPC or he may straightway take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c).

It was noted by the Court that in  present case the Magistrate had not exercised any such powers in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) or Section 190(1)(c) CrPC but, the High Court has, while dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC, directed him to direct the police to investigate further, particularly as regards the role of the appellant; and such exercise of power by the High Court was  in question, the Court noted.  

The powers under Section 482 CrPC are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities, the Court remarked. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted, the Court noted. 

 In  relation to the allegations of defalcation of goods and misappropriation of stocks from the godown of the Corporation, the person lodging the FIR with reference to the audit report, i.e., the Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager, made imputations only against the the third respondent  who was a class IV employee of the Corporation but was purportedly posted as an in-charge Assistant Godown Manager by the appellant, who was, at the relevant time, holding the position of the District Manager. 

Though several features of the actions and omissions at the relevant time were  mentioned in the audit report, the Court did not  propose to dilate on the same. The Bench observed that when all the relevant aspects were duly projected before the High Court in the petition filed by the third respondent, the High Court could not have simply ignored the same only for the reasons that the informant omitted to state them while lodging the FIR, and/or the investigating officer overlooked them while submitting the result of investigation, and/or the learned Magistrate did not pay requisite attention to them while taking cognizance, the Court observed. 

Thus, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the Bench opined that though the High Court had rightly exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC for directing further investigation but, had not been justified in making such observations, comments, and remarks, which left little scope for an independent investigation and which carry all the potential to cause prejudice to the appellant.

 In the totality of circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, the Court opined that the investigation contemplated by the order impugned should be allowed to be taken to its logical end lest there be any prejudice to any party only because of such observations.The entire matter was left open for examination by the investigating agency, by the sanctioning authority and by the Court concerned at the relevant stage and in accordance with law, the Bench added.

Accordingly and in view of the above, the appeal was dismissed.