Brief Facts
- The Appellant had shared on his Facebook account on 05.04.2020, a viral picture of then sitting Cabinet Minister of the State of Maharashtra, criticizing his act of ridiculing the Prime Minister of India. Thereafter, at around 11:50 on the same day four Policemen, two dressed in civilian dress and other two in uniform, came to his residence and forcibly took him to the Bungalow of the said Minister where the Minister instructed his men to beat him and make him apologies for circulating the said viral picture of the Minister.
- The appellant- victim filed a complaint immediately. However, Police did not name the Minister as an accused in the FIR. Thus, apprehending bias and alleging that the entire investigation has been conducted in sham and casual manner the appellant approached the High Court by way of writ petition praying for transfer of the investigation of the aforesaid FIRs to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), or any other agency.
- Thereafter, the Police filed the initial chargesheet without naming the concerned Minister as accused. But owing to the constant monitoring by the High Court the Minister was added as accused two years after the said incident. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Trial Court framed the charges against the accused on the basis of the chargesheets already filed, which according to the appellant was for the lesser offences than the actually committed, like, Kidnapping, abducting and causing grievous hurt.
- Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI and/or any other agency by observing that the chargesheet is filed and the High Court prima facie opined that by filing the chargesheet the investigating agency has conducted the investigation from all angles. High Court further opined that after framing of charges against the accused persons the trial has already commenced and thereafter, reinvestigation/further investigation is not permissible. Being aggrieved by the same, the victim approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether framing of charges is a bar to order further investigation under section 173(8) of the CrPC?
- Whether the victim has the right to seek further investigation/reinvestigation?
- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in denying the relief of transfer of the investigation to CBI and refusing to order further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the Petition and ordered further investigation. Investigation agency was directed to complete the further investigation within 3 months and file the Supplementary report before the trial court. However, the investigating agency was left free to decide the aspect of further investigation.
- It was held that applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160 and Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578 and to do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the constitutional courts may order further investigation / re investigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed. If the submission on behalf of the accused and even as observed by the High Court that once the chargesheet is filed and the charges are framed, there may not be any order for further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation is accepted, in that case, the accused may see to it that the charges are framed to avoid any fair investigation / fair trial. It would lead to travesty of justice.
- The victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant.
Relevant Para No.
- 11, 12.3
