Dismissed

Syed Barkathulla Basha v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2022CRLRC/652/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision seeking to set aside impugned order allowing further investigation. The court held that under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., only the investigating agency can request further investigation, though private individuals cannot initiate it. Despite dismissing the revision, the court directed the agency to file supplementary charge sheet within four weeks to expe

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed. Supplementary charge sheet to be filed within four weeks.

Syed Barkathulla Basha Vs the State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STI\TE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABA.D

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 652 OF 2018

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order daled.24.01.201B, made in Crl.MP. No. 986 ot 2017 in CC.No. 32 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Barkathulla Basha, S/o. Syed Jamalullah Basha, Occ, Unani Medicine Practice at Pulse Clinic at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, R/o. 1B-719BlCl'l01lA, Aamannagar, Talb Katta, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Revision Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented . by its public prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶12

...Res pondent/Respondent

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶14

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay all fufther proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No. 2 herein in CC.No. 32 o'f 2015 on the file of the ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted on

¶17

06-03-2018^{in lA.N} 1 of 2018 in Crl.Rc.No. 6521 of 1t l'1 B until further orders.

¶18

IA NO: 1^{0F 2022}

¶19

Between:

¶20

The State of^{-elangana, representedby its Public Prosecutor,High} Court,^{at HYde abad.}

¶21

... Petiti oner/Respondent

¶22

AND

¶23

Syed^{Barkathr la Basha, S/o.SyedJanralullah Bashit, Occ, Unani} M-edicine^{Prac rce at PulseClinic at Bandlaguda,Hyd:rabad,R/o. 1B-7-} 1gBlcl101^{I A,,amannagar, Talb Katta,Yakutpura,H)',lerabad}

¶24

,,.. Res pondent/Acc used

¶25

Petition^{undt . Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in t1e circumstances} stated in^{the grour is filed in supportof thrl Criminal F.:vision Case,the} High Court^{may bpleasedto Vacatethe stay in lA.l,lo.01 of 2018 in} Crl.R.C.No.^{652 of '018on the file of the Hon'ble Court}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Pe itioner:SRI V. RAGHUNATH}

¶27

Counsel^{for the Rr ;pondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUT()R(TG)}

¶28

The Court^{made tl : following: ORDER}

¶29

'I'IIli llON'lll-li Dr. JUS'l'lCE (1. ItAI)Hr\ RANI CRIIlIN.\1. RhVISION^('ASI,l No.652 OI. 20I8

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

'fhis Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-A2 against^{tlre orderdated 24.01.201 8 passedin Crl.MP No.986of 2017} in CC^{No.32 of 2015by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, ttyderabad.}

¶32

2.^{'I'he case} of^{the petitioner-A2, in} bricl,^{wasthat the Sub} Iuspector^{of Police,Afzatgunj Police Station filed charge shect against} hinr along^{with Al and A3 under Section 4l(d)1102 Cr.P.C.and} Section^{l7l(E), (H) IPC. While the case was at the stageof} arguments,^{the Inspectorof Police, Afzatgunj filed a petition} requesting^{the court to post the matter for consideration ol'} supplementary^{charge sheet as further investigation was beingtaken} up and^{would file supplementary charge sheet,upon which the trial} court disposed^{ofthe petitionobserving that the InvestigatingOfficer} could^{conductfurtherinvestigation as contemplatedunder Section} 173(8)^{Cr.P.C.if required even at the stage of argumentsand could} file supplementarY^chargesheet.

¶33

¶34

Agglier :rl by the saicl orcler, the pctitioncr I^lc f'crrcd this lcvision conlcn( nq that thc court below ertecl in passing thc inrpugncd orrlcr vithout thcrc being any application^rl .nt thc Statc seeking pcrmissi^,u. lbr conducting further investiqaticn and rvithout therc being any Latcrial on rccord citlrer in the charge sl tret,rr in thc evidcnce of the prosecution witncsscs. The couft be orv thiled to apprcciate that re State rvas consciously dragging thr: r-naltcr rvith malicious inte nt xr to harass the revision petitioner I L'rein. Betbre allorving thc pct tion under Scction 173(8) Cr.l'}.('., tlre Invcstigation authoritics have ttr place the content showing reasorrrlrle cause lor conducting furt :r investigation. ln the absence ol rt ordering for further invcstigi iorr was tirtile. The court below lailci t,t appreciate the^judgrncnts r^-thc llon'trle Apex Court in respect ol speedy trial. The Investigati g Agencies could not get a shield -rnder Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. rcler the guise of further investigation ;rxl to keep the trial pending.^'he court below erred in applying s,:me of the judgrnents whit rhad no application at all. The ofl'enc",r; 1'or,.r,rhich the charge sheet w; ; frled were non-cognizable as such, thI lnvestigating Officer was bo nd to take permission fron.r the cour1. \Vithout there being any lter rission or sanction from the contpcl()1t court, the

¶35

invcstigatiorr ct'rncluctccl rvlrs lilble to tre quashccl and prayctl to sct asiclc the inrpugnctl orcler

¶36

Fleard Sri V. Raghunath, learnecl counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1"'respondent.

¶37

Perused the order of the trial court passed in Crl.M.P. No.98(r ol 2017. Tl're case olthe prosecution as per the charge shcet filcd by thc Sr-rb- [rrspector o1- Policc, A1)algunj Police Station was that r\l rvas thc State General Sccretary ol'Popular Front of India, I'olitical s,ing ol' Social Democratic Pa(y ol' lndia. On 05.05.20 14, A2 rcccivecl infbrmation fionr Al tliat their Delhi control office was sendirrg an arrount of Rs.6.00 lakhs through I{awala channel to meet the election expenses at Nandyal and Kumool and to collect the same and forward to Kurnool. Al also instructed .A2 to forward the token number (code) to his mobile number. As per the instructions of Al, ,{2 forwarded the token number to Al. Then, Al sent an SMS to A2. On receipt of the said SMS, 42 contacted with the said number which belonged to 43, who instructed .A2 to come to Bannaji Market,^{Begum Bazar,} Hyderabad and A2 received an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs^{from A3,} after handing over the token of ten rupees denomination^currencywith

¶38

¶39

scrial No.l3 I{ 2 8ll antl r\ I to A-l conrnrittctl thr.' ol'lt''cc Iiablc tirr purlishment uncle Scctions 1l (dyl02 Cr.P.Cl. and l7l^{(t ,.} (H)lPC.

¶40

Alie l tl ' irial rvas corlpletcd ancl rvhcn lhc ta:c wils at the stage of argumer s, it rvas allcged that thc Investigating Olicer movcd the above petiti n intirnating that hc had credible inf^,rmalion that there was a big5 r conspiracy involving many peoplc ir ltre casc arrd hence, on thc ir ;tnrctions ol- his sulrerior ofllccrs, lrc irad taken up lurther rrrvcstiq iorr antl requesled to adjourn thtr rrrl.tcl till the supplcmcntary c arge shcct was llled, and to takc the siurLrr on record.

¶41

6.'l'he tli, court, alicr considering the case la,,v ri^, the aspect in

¶42

detail by rei-cn'ir I to thc.judgments olthe Hon'ble Aper,,'ourt in:

¶43

l. Dhara r Pal v. State of Haryanar,

¶44

Awad, ;h Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha & another v. Stale r^' Bihar:.

¶45

Amur hbhai Sharnbubhai Patel v. Sumanbnai Kantibhai Patel & r nother-1,

¶46

Kisha Lal v. Sharmendra Bafnaa,

¶47

Vinay tvagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepah & Ors.' and

¶48

I (2016) 2 SCC (Crl.) slt

¶49

2 AIR 2016 SC 373

¶50

3 Ait 2017 SC'774

¶51

2009 Lawsuir (SC) 272

¶52

5 2012 tawSuit (SC) 45

¶53

)

¶54

llanrchandran r'. I{. Udhnyahumar & Ors.6

¶55

observecl that il the lnvcstigating Agency got sonte ntole crucial evidence alter the charge sheet was liled, as per Section 173 (8) Cr.l'.C., notliing would preclude it to condurct lurther investigation and ttre l-lon'bte Apex Court in lLama Chaudhary v. State of BiharT and State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter8 held that law would not mandate taking of prior permission lrom Ihe Magistrate tbr carrying out l'urlher investigation even after filing ol report and it is a statutory right of police and disposed ol the petition observing that conducting of Iurther invcstigation by the Investigating Officer was his prerogative right and he could file supplementary charge sheet.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka and anotherq. A perusal of the said^judgment would disclose that the prayer for further investigation was sought for by the respondent No.2, who was not even the complainant, and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

¶57

6 (2008) 4 Supreme 305

¶58

7 AIR 2oo9 sc 2308

¶59

'^{(zooa)t scc (crD +zu}

¶60

o lzors; r+scc zea

¶61

"lt v rs not ()pcr trr llrc⁽ trutt lo tlilcct firrtl'c. invcs gation as tlrc'l rial Court ltad alrcatly li'rrrncrl clrarl s and taker cognizancc ol'thc casc agaittst^tlt,: aPpe rnt rvho itppcarctl bctirrc it in tlrc srri,l proc( rlrnqs. Ilrr. pnrrcl lir lirrthcr inr,csti!r'tr.,' was .)t irl llrc irrsl0rttr r,l llrc lnvcsligillll18 ilg(ile^, llor⁽ the ground of <lctcctiort of rnaterial cvidcl'rcc.'

¶62

]'he Il^,n'ble Apex Courl in the above casc^r,r lerred to the

¶63

juclgnrent r.r I r nrurthbhai Shambubhai Patcl 1. Sunranbhai

¶64

Kantibhai Pate & anoth('r⁽³ supra). l'cl'cllcd lry ]re llial court in

¶65

this case. whelci it rvas obriervcd tltat

¶66

"49. )n an ovcrall surr,cy ol thc pronounccnrcrt! ot' this lourt on tlrc scopc arrd purport ol' Scctit rr lTlt ) of thc Codc and the col'lsist",l, '.",,6 ,rf expl :rrtion therco{. rvc are thus tlisposed to hol(l^{th rt} thor Jr thc investigati!1g agcncy concemed has [ret r invr tecl with thc power to unticrlake lirrllt - r invr tigation desirably aftcr inlonning thc Cot rt ther :f, before rvhich it had submitted its rr'porl arr,l obtr nrng its approval, no such porver is availirbl: thcr frrr to thc lcarncd Magistrate afler cognizulr:e has ;ecn taken on the basis of the earliel rcporr, pro' )ss has been issued ar]d accused has errtcr:l app rrance in response thereto. At that stage, ncrtlt r the leamed Magistrate suo motu nor on r r) app catron filed try the complainant/infomiu-rt dirr,,l furl er investigation. Such a course would be op:n onl on the requost of the investigating agency a',d that loo, in circurnstanccs warranting furtl .'r' inv ltigation on ttre detection of rnaterial evidr,rtc onl to secure fair invcstigation and trial, the l,ic pur osc olthe adjudication in hand.

¶67

lhc unamended and thc arnended subSectiol l) of; rction 173 ofthe Code ifread injuxtaposition wo lcl overwhelnlingly attest that by the Iattcr. lrc inv stirating allcncy/officer alone hrrs btrir aul orized to corrduct furtlrct investigation uith,).lt

¶68

¶69

¶70

lirrritin{t the stasc ol' tltc ;troecodings rclatable lhcrel(). l hrs po\,er qlla the invcstigating ageuc', otlicer is thus lcgislativcly intencled to bc avirilirble at anv stilgc of' the prticcedings.^'fhc rcconrmcndirtion ot'lhc Larv Cornmission in its 4l st. Rcgrort rilrich lnanittsting heraldcd the arnendrncnt, signilicantly hatl linrited its proposal to tlie cmpowennont of the invcstigating agency alone."

¶71

Thus, the llon'ble Ayrex Couft also noted that the power to conducl lirrther investigation \vas available only to the Investigating Agency and neithcr thc Magistrate suo [lotu nor on an application filed by the cornplainant, coulcl direct fufihcr investigation.

¶72

As the order ol'the trial court is in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C:., this Courl does not find any merit to set aside the same.

¶73

I l. In the result, the Climinal Revision Case is dismissed upholding the order dated 24.01 .2018 passed in Cri.M.P. No.986 of 2017 in CC No.32 of 2015 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶74

However, as the CC is pertaining to the year 2015 and the trial is also at the fag end, the Investigating Agency is directed to file the supplementary charge sheet within a period of fbur weeks from the

¶75

¶76

¶77

date ol' rcccipt c co1'ry ol' this ordcr. ri itlrout Iurtlrcr :rclay in thc

¶78

nral tcr'.

¶79

l'ending ur ;t:cilaneous llctitions, il'anv. shall stan,I r'ioscrl

¶80

,TRUE COPY/i'

¶81

SD/.M. VIJAYA BHASKAR J(]INT REGISTRAR :/-