The Supreme Court observed that the Inspector of Police had carried out a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code based on the authorization given by a police officer rather than a judicial officer.
The Court restated that the judicial officer had the authority to grant authorization for further investigation, not the police officers.
Additionally, the Court mentioned that the legal obligation to obtain permission for further investigation or submit a supplementary report was not fulfilled, making the investigation report legally invalid.
Brief Fact of the Case:
The appellant had filed a Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Kerala High Court, which had rejected their plea to utilise Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) and had ruled that the Criminal Case could not be terminated.
Brief Background of the Case:
In October 2015, an FIR was filed against the appellant and accused No. 1 for cheating Sunesh (de facto complainant) and seven others by offering them jobs as clerks at the Kottayam Rubber Board. The appellant was charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Accused No. 1 has since passed away.
Procedural History:
In December 2015, a Final Report (hereinafter referred to as “FR-I”) was filed in which the complainant was asked to provide documents related to a financial transaction but failed to do so. Therefore, the case was considered false due to the lack of evidence. However, another Final Report (hereinafter referred to as “FR-II”) was found in the records, indicating that a witness had conducted further investigation, Inspector of Police, as per an order passed by the District Police Chief, Kottayam.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that the reinvestigation violated the proper legal procedure. They further contended that the High Court was wrong in not quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC because the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC had not been fulfilled. The appellant claimed that they had not explicitly been implicated in witness statements and that the de facto complainant had given money to the deceased accused and instigated others to do the same.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The State argued that only further investigation upon the order of the District Police Chief had been conducted. Citing previous cases, they argued that further investigation is where the investigating officer obtains additional oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed. Its purpose is to discover further evidence and bring the facts before the Court, even if they are discovered at a later stage.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court has made several observations. The Court noted that FR II was invalid because the Inspector of Police conducted a further investigation based on an order passed by a police officer rather than a duly-empowered judicial officer. The permission requirement for further investigation was not complied with and, thus, rendered FR-II without basis. Thus, the Supreme Court noted that the power to order further investigation did not rest with the District Police Chief, Kottayam, but with the concerned magistrate or a higher Court.
The Apex Court further opined that the High Court should use its powers under Section 482 only sparingly and must not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings if a dispute is of a civil nature. In the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(2013) 13 SCC 673], instances were laid out where the power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Inherent Powers under Section 482, CrPC would be justifiably exercised.
The offence alleged in the FIR is Section 420 IPC, which is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement in terms of the delivery of property and/or valuable securities. The threshold of Section 420 was not breached because only one ingredient was fulfilled, and no proof of any financial transaction was on record.
The decision of the Court:
Considering the above observations, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of the Kerala High Court and dismissed the Criminal Case against the accused. The Court allowed the Criminal Appeal of the accused.
Case Title: Peethambaran v State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 450 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR, Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv., Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Adv., Mr. Km Vignesh Ram, Adv., Mr. Nasib Masih, Adv., Ms. Darshna Nair, Adv., Ms. Akshita Agrawal, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
