In a recent Judgement, Supreme Court has reiterated that Courts Not Obliged to hear the accused before directing Further Investigation under section 173(8) of CrPC.
The judgement came out in a case titled as Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
CASE BACKGROUND
In the Present case, The respondent lodged the FIR against the appellant and others. Police Inspector, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and others. However, three accused persons, namely, Yagnesh Vyas, Sanjay Shah and Ronak Shah were not charge-sheeted. The matter was carried up to Supreme Court by way of Criminal Appeal. During the hearing of the aforesaid appeal, there was progress in the investigation and the charge-sheet was filed against the accused Yagnesh Vyas and Sanjay Shah who were also arrested. Therefore, while disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, the Court observed that if the respondent has any objection against dropping of one another accused, he may file objection and can file a protest petition in the Trial Court. That, thereafter the respondent filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 173(8) and 156(3) CrPC for further investigation against Shri Bhaumik. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the said application on merits as well as on the ground that after the charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred the Special Criminal Application before the High Court of Gujarat. In the said Special Criminal Application, the appellant herein, one of the accused who is already charge-sheeted, submitted an application permitting him to be joined as party respondent No. 4 in the said Special Criminal Application. By the impugned Judgment and Order, Judge of the High Court has dismissed the said application. Hence, the present appeal.
Supreme Court referred the observation in Bhagwan Samardha (supra), where in it was held:
In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.”
While referring to the various Judgements, Supreme court upheld the decision of the High Court and held that:
When the proposed accused against whom the further investigation is sought, namely Shri Bhaumik is not required to be heard at this stage, there is no question of hearing the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the chargesheet is already filed and the trial against whom is in progress and no relief of further investigation is sought against him. Therefore, the High Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application submitted by the appellant to implead him as a party respondent in the Special Criminal Application.
Read Judgement Here:
