Petitioner sought directions under section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding further investigation permissions. Court clarified that police autonomy allows further investigation without court permission, distinguishing it from reinvestigation.
Petition disposed of with clarification that no court permission is required for further investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-1661 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1661 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision : 17.01.2013
Mahesh Kumar
......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J.
Crl. Misc. No. 3035 of 2013
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1661of 2013
Mahesh Kumar, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for directions to the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin to decide the application dated 21.08.2012 (Annexure P-2) moved
Crl. Misc. No.M-1661 of 2013 2
by the investigating agency for permission to further investigate the case bearing FIR No. 162 dated 19.05.2012 registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal, Haryana, for an offence punishable under section 304 IPC. He has made an alternative prayer for directing the investigating agency to start further investigation as no formal permission is required under law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution filed an application on 21.08.2012 for permission to further investigate the matter. According to him, the Magistrate is sitting over the said application and although it is established proposition of law that for further investigation, the investigating agency does not require the permission of any authority, the investigating agency is awaiting the result of the application, which is not being decided.
It has been categorically laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 131 that police can make further investigation and even add other accused and for further investigation no permission of the court is required. What is said to be prohibited is reinvestigation. Distinction between further investigation and re-investigation has been highlighted.
Crl. Misc. No.M-1661 of 2013 3
It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court that the investigating agency does not require the permission of the court for further investigation and the investigating agency is at liberty to further investigate the matter even without waiting for the result of the application.
With this clarification, the petition is disposed of.
January 17, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police require court permission for further investigation of a case under section 304 IPC.
Whether an application for permission to further investigation needs to be decided by the Magistrate before the agency proceeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of A.P. v. A.S. PeterReferred¶23
State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 131
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Kumar
State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
