Case Title: Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
In this case, the High Court ordered the Magistrate to instruct the police to further investigate the case in accordance with Section 173(8) CrPC regarding the allegations against the District Manager of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and to seek the report within a period of three months. This was done in order to settle a petition brought under Section 482 CrPC.
The High Court issued directions to the Magistrate to order further investigation while exercising its inherent authority under Section 482 CrPC, but the Magistrate before whom the charge sheet had been filed and who had taken cognizance did not adopt any such process, the appellant argued in an appeal before the Apex Court.
The court noted that the Magistrate may also order an investigation under Sections 156(3) and/or 173(8) CrPC or he may immediately take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC where he is of the opinion that the results of the investigation in the form of the report filed before him are not satisfactory. Referring to numerous decisions on this issue, the bench provided the following summary:
(a) The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial.
(b) The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms of Section 156 CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include the power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC after receiving the report of investigation. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate, which is to be exercised on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.
(c) The powers under Section 482 CrPC are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted.