Supreme Court of India
K. Vadivel vs K. Shanthi on 30 September, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2024 INSC 746 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(@ SLP Criminal No. 4360 of 2022)
K. Vadivel …Appellant (s)
Versus
K. Shanthi & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment
and order dated 30.04.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court in Criminal R.C. (MD) No.533 of 2020.
By the said judgment, the High Court has, by a cryptic order,
and long after final arguments had been concluded on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.09.30
19.10.2019 in the trial court, ordered further investigation in
15:15:47 IST
Reason:
the matter. The aggrieved accused is before this Court with a
1
grievance that the direction was not justified in law
particularly when already an attempt by the wife of the
deceased to summon certain witnesses under Section 311 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) had been
rebuffed by the Trial Court and the High Court as early as in
December 2019.
3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
High Court was, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering
further investigation?
4. The basic facts essential for adjudication of the present
controversy are as follows:-
5. On 31.03.2013, a First Information Report (FIR) being
Crime No. 27 of 2013 was registered on the complaint given
by one Padikasu (subsequently examined as PW-1) stating
that when he along with the deceased Kumar were doing their
morning walk around 5:00 AM and were returning back,
three persons alighted from a car with weapons and hacked to
death, the deceased Kumar.
2
6. On 11.07.2013, a final report was filed setting up eight
accused for trial, including the appellant.
7. On 20.12.2016, PW-1 – Padikasu was examined. He
testified that among the two persons who alighted from the
car to attack Kumar, Ganapathy had a sickle in his hand;
upon seeing them he began to run; that he phoned the family
of deceased Kumar and spoke to the son of the deceased.
PW-1 testified that he had not seen the hacking. He further
testified that within five to ten minutes, the family members
of Kumar came to the place and that he went to the Police
Station at 6:45 AM and gave the complaint.
8. PW-1-Padikasu was declared hostile and sought to be
cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination
he denied the suggestion that he had told the Police that he
saw Ganapathy and Vadivel (appellant) hacking the deceased
and Chinnaraja (the other accused) stabbing the deceased
with a spear. On a question by the Court, he reiterated that he
saw Ganapathy among the persons who alighted having a
3
sickle and since he was perturbed and began to run though he
saw others, he was not in a position to identify them. His
deposition was recorded on 20thof December 2016.
9. Thereafter, on 18th of March 2017, the first respondent
Shanthi – wife of the deceased was examined. She
corroborated the phone call received from PW-1 and also
stated that PW-1 told her that Ganapathy, Vadivel (appellant)
and Karthick were the accused who hacked her husband with
sickle and that while Chinnaraj and Selvaraj stabbed her
husband with spear-stick, Madhavan, Murugan and
Palaniyappan caught hold of her husband. She also testified
that when after receiving the phone call she went to the place
of the incident with Sathappa Subramanian and Subramanian,
her brothers-in-law and that her own brothers also
accompanied her. On 18.03.2017 itself, PW-3, Subbaiah and
PW-4, Duraimurugan were examined.
10. On 25.07.2019, PW-1 – Padikasu was recalled at the
behest of accused A1 and A2 wherein he stated that he did
4
not specifically state to the Police about A1 Ganapathy being
present in the place of occurrence and that he had only stated
that three unidentified persons had attacked the deceased. He
further added that he mentioned about A1 Ganapathy only on
account of the Police threatening him.
11. On 19.10.2019, on the conclusion of the trial, final
arguments were heard, and the case was fixed for filing of
written arguments.
12. At this stage, on 22.10.2019, Respondent No. 1
(examined as PW-2/wife of the deceased) filed Crl.
M.P.No.245 of 2019 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. She
contended that PW-1 – Padikasu has given false evidence;
that the Investigating Officer has failed to enquire the proper
eye-witnesses; that the direct eye-witnesses to the
occurrence-K. Ganesh S/o Kumar, P. Karmegam S/o
Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o
Padikasu and C. Andiappan S/o Chinnaiah have not been
examined and that they deserve to be summoned. According
5
to the application filed by respondent No. 1, these witnesses
would speak about the cell phone recovered by the Police
from the occurrence spot and that the cell phone was of
Nokia Brand holding the sim of Vodafone company which
belonged to her. She averred that the Police failed to produce
the material object and that the cell phone and call details
ought to have been produced by the Police. In view of the
above, she prayed that the additional witnesses be summoned
and examined.
13. The accused opposed the Section 311 petition by
pointing out the delay of 6 years and 9 months in filing the
petition and also about respondent No.1 (PW-2) not
whispering about any of these facts during her examination.
They contended that the persons sought to be examined were
none other than her son, brother, brothers-in-law and other
close relatives.
14. The State also filed its response opposing the
application by averring that when the statement of
6
Respondent No. 1 was recorded nothing was mentioned by
her and that during the investigation also nothing of the
nature as alleged now was forthcoming; that even while
being examined as PW-2 the applicant had not mentioned
these facts; that no phone was seized and no sim card was
seized and that investigation was properly conducted and
final report filed.
15. On 29.11.2019, the Trial Judge dismissed the
application filed by respondent No. 1. The Court observed
that the application was filed after the examination of the
prosecution witnesses had concluded and when the case was
posted for questioning the accused under Section 313. That
respondent No. 1 was already examined as PW-2 on
18.03.2017 and that on that day itself, together with her,
Subbaiah alias Subramanian and Duraimurugan were also
examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. The Court
observed that though the power under Section 311 is
available to the Court to reach a just decision, it cannot be
7
exercised unless the facts and circumstances of the case make
it apparent as otherwise it would result in causing serious
prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.
The Court observed that though the power is available, it has
to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
16. The first respondent, vide Crl. O.P (MD) No. 18701 of
2019, challenged the order dated 29.11.2019 dismissing the
petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
The State vehemently opposed the said petition by reiterating
its contention in the courts below. The High Court, by its
order of 16.12.2019, dismissed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of
2019 holding in its operative portion as follows:
“9. It is seen that P.W.1 is the person who stated to have
accompanied the deceased victim at the time of
occurrence. He had been examined by the respondent
police. He had not stated anything as if the occurrence
was witnessed either by other persons other than him. He
was examined in chief before the trial court on
18.03.2017. On that date also, he has not spoken about
the occurrence having been witnessed by any other
persons other than him. Further, during cross
examination, he has also resiled from his earlier
statement. P.W.2 has been examined in chief on
8
18.03.2017. She has also not spoken about the additional
witnesses having seen the occurrence or that they have
been left out by the prosecution to be added as witnesses
in the final report. Further, after final report has been filed
on 11.07.2013, if it is true that the eyewitnesses have
been left out, she would have filed the petition for further
investigation even at that time, which has also not been
done. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
petition is filed much belatedly only for the purpose of
delaying the trial.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Judge.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed.”
17. Taking a cue, as it were, from the observations of the
High Court that the first respondent would have filed a
petition seeking for further investigation at that time if
eyewitnesses have been left out, the first respondent in
January, 2020 filed Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 61/2014
before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge with a prayer for directing the State to conduct further
investigation or reinvestigation by examining the related
occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the
9
application and submit additional (or) supplementary charge-
sheet. In the application, it was averred that the Investigating
Officer had failed to enquire Kattarimani who had
accompanied her husband-deceased Kumar and also had
failed to examine proper eyewitnesses; that PW-1 Padikasu
had given false statements and evidence and that Padikasu
had expressed fear and mentioned about the threatening
influences of the accused and other pressures brought by the
accused; that investigation has been carried out in a
haphazard manner; that there is lack of collection of material
evidence; that the cell phone used by PW-1 Padikasu and the
cell phone of deceased Kumar has not been properly secured
and placed for tracing the call details. That non-examination
of R. Natarajan, M. Muthu, S. Ramasamy who are the
occurrence witnesses and eye witnesses K. Ganesan S/o Late
Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o
Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o
10
Chinnaiah are designed at the behest of the inspector of
police.
18. It will be noticed from the application that insofar as the
eyewitnesses, who according to the first respondent were not
enquired, the names are common as mentioned in her earlier
Section 311 application. Under the category of occurrence
witnesses, she has added three names which surfaced for the
first time in this application. This aspect will be considered
later in this judgment.
19. The application was strongly opposed by the accused.
The accused, in their counter, averred that the application was
not maintainable without the consent of the public prosecutor
and that the misconceived application was intended to fill up
the lacunae in the prosecution; the allegation that any threat
to witnesses were denied and it was contended that no such
complaint was made in the last seven years about any such
threats being administered and even on 18.03.2017 when the
respondent no. 1 (PW-2) along with her brothers PW-3 and
11
PW-4 were examined, no such complaint was made. The
accused further averred that further investigation cannot be
ordered at the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the
instance of victims/complainants and it can only be done at
the behest of the investigating agency. The accused further
averred that after the section 311 Cr.P.C. petition, namely,
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of 2019 was dismissed even
Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination had been concluded and
thereafter the accused had concluded oral arguments and filed
written arguments. So contending, they had prayed for the
dismissal of the petition for further investigation.
20. The State also opposed the application stating that the
case has been investigated properly and charge-sheet filed;
that the respondent no. 1 has recorded her statement and her
earlier application to examine additional witnesses has been
dismissed and that the present application is only with an
intent to drag the proceeding.
12
21. The trial court dismissed the petition for further
investigation by its order of 23rd July, 2020. The trial court
held that the respondent no. 1 (PW-2) in her examination on
18.03.2017 in court did not speak anything as to about what
she is mentioning now in the application. That final report
was filed as early as on 11.07.2013 and if her contention is
correct, she would have filed a petition for further
investigation at that very time. The trial court further held
that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post
cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of
victims/complainants or at the instance of anyone else except
the investigating agency and that the petition was only filed
to prolong the proceeding.
22. The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the
High Court to which the accused filed a counter reiterating
the contentions. By the impugned order, without any
discussion whatsoever and holding the following in the
operative portion, the High Court allowed the application:
13
“10. It is seen that an opportunity to examine additional
witness was not given by this Court on the ground that
the petitioner has not filed a petition for further
investigation. In the above circumstances, dening (sic.) a
relief of further investigation may cause prejudice to the
petitioner. It is stated that P.W.1 turned hostile. This is a
murder case. For the above reasons, it is decided that
further investigation is necessary. The order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2020 in S.C.No.61 of 2014 dated
23.07.2020 on the file of the learned Additional District
Judge, Pudukottai is set aside. The investigation agency is
hereby directed to take up the case for further
investigation and to complete the investigation, after
examining all the witnesses referred by the petitioner and
to file a additional chargesheet within a period of three
months.
11. On receipt of the additional chargesheet, the trial
Court is directed to frame charges afresh and to proceed
with the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously
as possible.”
23. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on
14.03.2022. By an order of 16.08.2022, this Court, while
issuing notice, stayed the operation of the impugned order. It
appears that before the filing of the Special Leave Petition,
the additional charge-sheet also came to be prepared on
02.12.2021.
14
24. We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior
advocate, for the appellant as well as Shri Amit Anand
Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State as
well as Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior advocate, for the
respondent No. 1 (wife of the deceased).
25. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contends
that the present application filed by respondent no. 1 is a
disguised attempt to reopen the earlier proceedings under
Section 311 which attained finality; that after framing of
charges, respondent no. 1, who is not a complainant, cannot
file an application for further investigation under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C.; that the trial court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. after
framing of charges; that no grounds have been made out for
further investigation and that the High Court ought not to
have interfered with the order of trial court in the exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel relied on
several judgments of this Court to support the contentions.
15
26. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State
and the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1
strongly defended the impugned order. They contended that
the interest of justice is paramount and it will even trump the
need to avoid any delay being caused in the proceedings; that
the investigating agency has carried out further investigation
in compliance with the impugned order and prepared the
additional charge-sheet on 02.12.2021 bringing out certain
new facts and material; that no prejudice is caused to the
defence as the material will be furnished to the accused
persons and they will have ample opportunity to put forth
their defence. To support their stand, learned senior counsel
referred to several precedents.
27. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties, perused the records as well
as written submissions filed by them.
16
28. The legal position on the aspect of further investigation
is fairly well settled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, pursuant to the recommendation of the Law
Commission, in its 41st Report, Section 173(8) has been
expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy that may
have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:
“173(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-sections (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).”
29. The question really is, under what circumstances could
this power be invoked and whether on the facts of this case, is
a further investigation warranted.
30. There was some debate at the Bar as to whether the
Addl. District and Sessions Judge before whom the
17
application was filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section
173(8) after the conclusion of the evidence could have
ordered further investigation. The premise of the argument
was even though in the present case the Addl. District and
Sessions Judge has not ordered and it was the High Court
which had ordered it, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. The contention was
that as per the law laid down by this Court in Vinubhai
Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(2019) 17 SCC 1, further investigation could at best have
been ordered till the commencement of the trial.
31. In the present case, though the Trial Judge rejected the
application, the High Court has ordered further investigation.
Considering the fact that we are inclined to set aside the order
of the High Court, on merits, we deem it unnecessary to
discuss the issue of jurisdiction.
18
32. Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant
circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed
to decide the needfulness of further investigation or
reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the
parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 3
SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. State
(Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where
fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons
not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or
where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a
person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may
be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the
genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court.
33. However, the further investigation cannot be permitted
to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had
already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further
investigation, in this case respondent no. 1, has not whispered
about anything new in her evidence as is now sought to be
19
averred in the application. There must be some reasonable
basis which should trigger the application for further
investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction
that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further
investigation. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 347), this Court held as
under:-
“13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979) 2
SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because
cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective
investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may
be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so
permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the
more so in this case, that the police should inform the
court and seek formal permission to make further
investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of
being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need
for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual
offences found during course of proper investigation is as
much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious
disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the
aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further
investigation, the same can certainly be done as
prescribed by law. 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. We make it clear that we have
not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.”20
34. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors.,
(2013) 5 SCC 762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the
power of Magistrate to direct further investigation had the
following to say:
“41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further
investigation” is a significant power which has to be
exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve
the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and
unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the
investigating agency and the court in its supervisory
capacity is required to ensure the same. Further
investigation conducted under the orders of the court,
including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its
own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the
filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary
report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report.
This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections
173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in
terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”
35. It is essential to note that this Court emphasized that
though power to order further investigation is a significant
power it has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
cases and to achieve the ends of justice (see Devendra Nath
Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2023) 1 SCC 48, para 45).
21
Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered
is within the discretion of the Magistrate and the said
discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in
accordance with law. This Court also held that in an
appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the
investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete
justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to
direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This
Court reiterated the principle that even under Section 482
Cr.P.C. the wide powers are to be exercised fairly with
circumspection and in exceptional cases.
36. In Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 dealing
with the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI, this Court
had the following to say:
“47. ….We are conscious of the fact that though a
satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective
investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the22
precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-
investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or
the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a
prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the
attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated
and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further
investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and
mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the
endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice
on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed
through a committed, resolved and a competent
investigating agency.”
37. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case,
we find that for the following reasons the direction for further
investigation is absolutely unwarranted:-
i. The application for further investigation was filed in
January 2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. too had been filed as early as
on 11.07.2013.
ii. On 20th December, 2016, PW-1 Padikasu was
examined, he was recalled and cross-examined on
25.07.2019.
23
iii. Respondent No. 1 (who is the applicant for further
investigation) herself was examined on 18.03.2017.
There is no whisper in her deposition about what she
now seeks to contend in the application for further
investigation. There was nothing that had prevented her
from deposing in the box about any failure of the
investigating officer, to enquire Kattarimani or any
person concerned; about R. Natrajan, M. Muthu and S.
Ramasamy being occurrence witnesses and about
K.Ganesan S/o Late Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o
Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam
S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah being
eye witnesses, and about how such failure has caused
prejudice.
iv. In fact, seeking the examination of these five witnesses
mentioned hereinabove, first respondent filed
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which came to be
dismissed by the trial court on 29.11.2019 and was
24
confirmed by the High Court. The application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. itself was filed on 22.10.2019, that
is after a period of about six years after the filing of the
charge-sheet.
v. It is only when the High Court dismissed her petition
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that she had not made
any prayer for further investigation that she filed the
present application in January, 2020. At the stage when
she filed the application for further investigation, the
accused had concluded oral arguments and had also
filed written arguments.
vi. The trial court dismissed the application stating that the
respondent no. 1 when examined as PW-2 did not speak
anything about what she had mentioned in her
application and that though the final report was filed as
early as on 11.07.2013, respondent no. 1 has filed the
application for further investigation only in January,
2020. Though, the trial court held that no further
25
investigation could be ordered at the post cognizance
stage, we have, as explained above, not proceeded on
that reasoning, since that is clearly erroneous.
vii. The High Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever
and has not set out any legal principle which is relevant
and applicable to the facts. All that is said is the Section
311 petition of the respondent no. 1 has been denied on
the ground that she has not filed a petition for further
investigation; that denial of relief would cause prejudice
to respondent no. 1; that PW-1 has turned hostile and
that being a murder case, it is decided to order for
further investigation. Not one of the legal principles
adverted to hereinabove has been considered by the
Court.
viii. As pointed out hereinabove, the failure to claim further
investigation at that stage was not the only basis for the
High Court to reject the revision against the dismissal of
the Section 311 application. The High Court had given
26
other detailed reasons also like PW-1 and PW-2 not
whispering about the additional witnesses, when they
deposed in Court.
38. We are convinced that ordering the additional charge
sheet to be taken on record at this stage pursuant to the
further investigation will not be in accordance with law. It
will be contrary to the settled principles as laid down by this
Court. We have also to satisfy ourselves examined the
additional charge sheet placed before us. Primarily, apart
from explaining the motive which is already set out in the
evidence of PW-2, there is a reference to three of these
witnesses named in this application as having come to rescue
of the deceased after hearing the noise raised by the deceased.
It is now alleged that A-5 tried to prevent the said two
witnesses from approaching Kumar and threatened them with
the sickle. It is also alleged that at that point these witnesses
saw A-1 and A-4 committing overt acts on the deceased.
27
39. As pointed out earlier, when the application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.10.2019, the State, in its
response and in the arguments before the Court vehemently
opposed the application. Even before the High Court in the
Revision filed against the dismissal of the application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State had expressly contended that the
respondent no. 1 was examined more than five times by the
investigating officer and even in her deposition in court had
not adverted to any of these aspects.
40. Before the trial court and the High Court in the present
set of proceedings concerning the application for further
investigation, the State had opposed the prayer contending
that the investigation of the case has been done properly and
charge-sheet had been duly filed arraigning all the allegedly
involved individuals.
41. It is only in this Court that the State has vehemently
defended the order. A counter affidavit was filed by the State
28
in this Court in September, 2024 without offering any tenable
justification for the need for further investigation. We direct
that for all these reasons the additional charges ought not to
be taken on the record of the trial Court.
42. A brief postscript. While it is true that delay in trial will
cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be
made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to
hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not
exist. This case is a classic example of the latter category.
The FIR was filed on 31.03.2013 and the charge-sheet on
11.07.2013. At the fag end of the trial in October 2019, on
the eve of the final arguments, the first round of applications
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which
culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019.
43. Soon thereafter in January, 2020, virtually the same
grounds which had been rejected earlier were rehashed in the
form of an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on
behalf of the respondent no. 1. The State, which had hitherto
29
opposed all the applications up to the High Court, turned
turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no. 1 in this Court
without offering any tenable justification as to how the earlier
investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial lacked
credibility.
44. The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the
process have contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven
years having elapsed after the incident, the trial has still not
concluded. No doubt, the High Court allowed the further
investigation which we have today reversed. The judgment of
the High Court also gave no valid justification for ordering a
further investigation.
45. The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at
large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be
available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is beyond
cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of
rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be
disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the
30
parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid
justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need
to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly.
The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the
citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake
that faith and confidence.
46. The legal profession has an important role to play in the
process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie
lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. We are
constrained to observe this because of late we notice that
pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable
averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is
especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and
criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we are left
to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of
what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before
appending their signatures. These misadventures directly
impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency
31
and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases
which are crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and
vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form
of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such
tactics. If we have desisted from such a course in this case, it
is only because the High Court allowed the petition and it is
here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the
petition for further investigation.
47. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we set
aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in
Criminal RC (MD) No. 533 of 2020. Consequently Cr. M.P.
No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 61/2014 filed by the respondent no. 1
before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge for
further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would
stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view of the
dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated
02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is,
accordingly, allowed.
32
48. We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh,
the trial should be concluded and judgment pronounced
within eight weeks from today.
…….…………………J.
(B.R. Gavai)
.………………………J.
(K.V. Viswanathan)
New Delhi;
September 30, 2024.
33