1

“Reportable ”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1526   OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 4979 of 2010)

Virender Prasad Singh …. Appellant

Versus

Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. An extremely unusual order passed by the High Court  

has fallen for consideration in this appeal which has  

been  filed  on  behalf  of  the  appellant/complainant  

Virender Prasad Singh.  The said order was passed on the  

basis  of  a  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  No.  

1/accused Rajesh Bhardwaj who is facing the charges of  

very serious offences like provided under Sections 302,  

201  and  120  B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter  

referred to as “IPC” for short).  By the impugned order,

2

the learned Judge of the High Court has issued certain  

directions, whereby he has directed the re-examination  

of the completed investigation by an officer of the rank  

of  Director  General  of  Police  (DGP).   An  extremely  

unusual course has been taken, whereby the counsel for  

the respondent No. 1/accused, who had filed the petition  

under Section 482 before the High Court, was asked to  

give a proposal of three names of the police officers of  

the DGP rank for examining the records of the completed  

investigation, wherein even the charge sheet was already  

filed.  Similar choice seems to have been given even to  

the counsel for the appellant/informant to suggest some  

names.  The appellant/informant (respondent before the  

High Court) did not choose to give any name, with the  

result that the High Court went on to select one Mr.  

Manoj Nath, an IPS of 1973 Batch for assistance in the  

matter.  The High Court observed:-

“This Court requests Mr. Manoj Nath to examine all the  records of the case in detail and submit his report to  this Court preferably within a period of one month with  his clear opinion as to (i) whether investigation of the  case is complete from all angles and case is fit to be  tried on the basis of materials and report placed on  record by the Investigating Officer only or (ii) whether  there  are  some  loopholes  and  lacunae  in  the  investigation  which  necessitates  further  or  fresh  investigation of the case and if necessary by a more  experienced  and  specialized  agency,  and/or  (iii)  what  further steps, if any, are required to be taken in the

3

case in the ends of justice, so that the guilty may not  escape and the innocent may not suffer due to laches on  the part of officers of the State.  For consideration of  Mr. Nath, parties are directed to make available the  documents and materials which they have placed on record  in the form of a properly indexed paper book within two  weeks.  This Court expects from Mr. Nath that he will  not get swayed away by any opinion of any officer or  agency  which  may  be  available  on  record  and  shall  completely ignore the pleadings of the parties.  He will  examine  the  documents  and  evidence  of  the  witnesses  available on record and form his independent opinion in  the matter.  If necessary, under the authority of this  Court,  he  may  requisition  any  other  documents  and  material connected with the case, in original or in the  form  of  its  carbon  copy,  from  any  other  source  or  authority and upon his requisition, the same shall be  made available to him by all concerned, default of which  shall be treated as contempt of this Court.”

In the last paragraph of its order, the High Court  

held:-

“Till 21st June, 2010, the Court concerned shall not take  any further steps in the proceeding arising out of Arrah  Rail GRP Case No. 73 of 2007.”

The concerned criminal case was initiated by a First  

Information Report registered on 6.12.2007.  It is an  

admitted  position  that  the  investigation  had  been  

completed and the police was going to submit the charge  

sheet dated 18.6.2009, but before that, the mother of  

the respondent No. 1/accused filed Crl. WJC No. 394 of  

2009  before  the  High  Court.   In  this  petition,  the  

prayer was for re-investigation of the matter by another  

agency.  Eventually, the mother of the respondent No.  

1/accused  died  and  the  respondent  No.  1/accused  was

4

substituted for her, and it is only on that basis that  

the order has been passed.

3.  The  First  Information  Report  refers  to  the  

incident which took place on 30.11.2007, according to  

which at 10 p.m. on that day, the accused went to the  

house  of  the  deceased  Sonu,  the  daughter  of  the  

appellant/complainant and left with the deceased on his  

motorcycle  in  presence  of  the  witnesses.   Since  the  

deceased did not return home, the family members started  

searching  for  both.   It  has  come  on  record  that  

subsequently at about 12.30 a.m., the deceased Sonu had  

talked to her mother’s sister Dr. Anita and informed her  

that she was with the accused and would come back after  

getting married with him.  On the very next day i.e. on  

1.12.2007,  at  7.15  a.m.,  the  family  members  of  the  

deceased were informed by the Railway Police that the  

dead  body  of  the  girl  is  lying  on  the  side  of  the  

Railway track at Karisath Railway Station and her Mobile  

set bearing No. 9304915589 was also lying there.  The  

complainant’s  brother  Dr.  Sanjeev  reached  the  Railway  

Station and identified the body of the deceased.  The  

deceased had injuries on her head and a portion of her  

leg  was  cut.   Inquest  Panchnama  was  executed  by  the

5

Railway  Police  and  the  dead  body  was  sent  for  

postmortem.  At this time, the complainant/father of the  

deceased was out of station.  After he returned home, he  

was informed about the deceased having been taken by the  

respondent No. 1/accused at night on 30.11.2007.  On  

6.12.2007,  a  written  complaint  was  filed.   It  was  

disclosed in the said complaint that the deceased was in  

love  with  Rajesh  Bhardwaj,  (respondent  No.  1/accused)  

and wanted to get married with him and was persuading  

him for the last six months for marriage;  However, the  

accused wanted to get rid of her, as he was having an  

affair  with  some  other  girl  and  it  was  due  to  this  

reason  that  the  accused  committed  the  murder  of  the  

deceased and threw her dead body near the Railway track  

at  Karisath  Railway  Station,  with  the  intention  to  

create a false impression that the deceased had died in  

an accident.  The Railway Police registered the case as  

GRP Case No. 73 of 2007 for offences punishable under  

Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B IPC.  An application for  

orders under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code  

(Cr.P.C.)  was moved by the respondent No. 1/accused  

before the Sessions Court, Arrah, which was dismissed by  

the  Court  vide  order  dated  18.3.2008.   Needless  to  

mention that the respondent No. 1/accused was not in the

6

custody  of  the  police  till  then.   He  has  not  been  

arrested even till date.  Be that as it may, on finding  

that the accused was absconding, a proclamation under  

Section  82  Cr.P.C.  was  issued  on  20.3.2008  by  the  

Judicial  Magistrate.   It  was  also  pasted  on  the  

residence of the respondent No. 1/accused on 27.3.2008.  

The respondent No. 1/accused, after about four months  

i.e. on 1.7.2008, moved a petition before the High Court  

for  the  same  relief  under  Section  438,  which  was  

registered as Criminal Misc. No. 33158 of 2008.  That  

was  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated  

1.7.2008.  The respondent No. 1/accused did not stop  

there and moved to this Court by way of a Special Leave  

Petition (Crl.) No. 5140 of 2008.  It came before this  

Court on 28.7.2008 and this Court dismissed the same.  

However, it was observed that:-

“If the petitioner surrender before the concerned Court  and move for bail, the Court would do well to dispose of  the application on the day it is presented.”

Needless  to  mention  that  the  respondent  No.  

1/accused  never  surrendered.   On  6.4.2009,  one  more  

petition came to be filed before the High Court being  

Cr. WJC No. 352 of 2008, wherein the High Court was  

pleased  to  direct  the  Magistrate  to  dispose  of  the

7

objection  petition  filed  by  the  complainant  after  

hearing both the parties and it was directed that till  

then the issuance of process of attachment under Section  

83 Cr.P.C. would remain stayed.  Very strangely, in this  

order, the High Court observed:-

“the parents of the accused, would endeavour and do all  within their prowess to prevail upon and persuade, their  son Rajesh Bhardwaj to surrender before the court of law  as his anticipatory bail has been rejected up to the  Hon’ble Apex Court.”

4. On 15.5.2009, another petition being Crl. WJC No.  

394 of 2009 came to be filed before the High Court by  

the  mother  of  the  accused.   On  that  date,  the  

investigation was in progress, but the final report had  

not been submitted by the police.  It was expressed in  

this  petition  that  the  investigation  was  being  

influenced from the complainant’s side and there was a  

prayer for direction to the State Government to get the  

case investigated by an independent investigating agency  

such as Central Bureau of Investigation.  On 18.6.2009,  

police came to the conclusion that the offences alleged  

against  the  accused  were  committed  by  him  and,  

therefore, the charge sheet came to be filed for the  

offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B  

IPC.

8

5. Needless  to  mention  that  the  respondent  No.  

1/accused was still not arrested nor did he ever bother  

to appear before the Magistrate.

6. On 25.6.2009, after the charge sheet was filed, the  

father of the accused moved an application before the  

learned Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, saying that he did  

not have faith in the said Court and wanted to move a  

petition for transfer of this case before the District  

Judge,  Arrah,  and,  therefore,  the  proceedings  of  the  

case  be  stayed.   All  this  was  probably  done  as  the  

Magistrate had already initiated the proceedings under  

Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., finding that the accused was  

absconding.   The  Magistrate  took  the  view  that  the  

father of the accused had no locus standi to file the  

said application and also came to the conclusion that  

there appeared to be good reasons for proceeding against  

the accused.  The Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance  

of  the  offences.   Then  again,  for  some  inexplicable  

reasons, nothing happened for five months and again on  

10.11.2009, an application was moved before the Sessions  

Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah for an order under Section 438  

Cr.P.C.  for  anticipatory  bail.   The  learned  Sessions  

Judge  noticed  that  the  respondent  No.  1/accused  was

9

already  asked  by  this  Court  to  surrender  before  the  

court below and move the bail application.  It was also  

noted that the respondent No. 1/accused thereafter never  

bothered to appear though more than one year’s time had  

elapsed.   On  that  reasoning,  the  application  was  

dismissed.  Undaunted by this dismissal, the respondent  

No. 1/accused moved another application being Crl. Misc.  

Application No. 41823 of 2009 before the High Court on  

21.12.2009,  i.e.  after  more  than  one  month  of  the  

dismissal  of  the  earlier  bail  application.   It  was  

contended before the High Court that the charge sheet  

was filed only for the offences punishable under Section  

306 IPC and not under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B IPC.  

A very novel statement was made that his father’s kidney  

had failed and that the accused was going to donate the  

kidney and he should be granted provisional anticipatory  

bail.  What flabbergasts us is that on this broad plea,  

the  High  Court  granted  eight  months’  provisional  

anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1/accused.  Very  

strangely, all this was on the backdrop of the rejection  

of  all  the  applications  made  by  the  accused  under  

Section 438 Cr.P.C. before all the Courts including this  

Court.  Again, to say that we are surprised by this  

order, would be an under-statement.  We also did not

10

understand as to why eight months’ time was required by  

the accused and granted by the High Court for donating  

the kidney.  The respondent No. 1/accused again moved an  

application  on  13.1.2010,  stating  that  there  was  a  

typing error in the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the  

High  Court  where  he  was  wrongly  described  as  Rakesh  

Bhardwaj  instead  of  Rajesh  Bhardwaj.   It  was  also  

submitted that the charge sheet was filed under Sections  

302, 201 and 120 B IPC and not under Section 306 IPC as  

was  represented  to  the  High  Court.  The  matter  then  

pended for another four months and came for hearing only  

on 4.5.2010.  However, by that time, Dr. Vijay Laxmi,  

the mother of the respondent No. 1/accused had already  

expired.  After her death, the respondent No. 1/accused  

was substituted in her place.  It was during the course  

of arguments on Misc. Application No. 41823 of 2009 that  

the  subject  of  the  investigation  not  being  properly  

done,  cropped  up,  and  it  was  urged  that  the  matter  

should be re-investigated, though it was informed to the  

Court  that  the  charge  sheet  was  already  filed  about  

eight months prior to this date and the matter was also  

committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.  The High  

Court ultimately passed the impugned order.  The case  

was  then  fixed  for  hearing  before  the  High  Court  on

11

21.6.2010 as the first case in the list.  However, the  

trial has been stayed and the High Court has gone to the  

extent of selecting a new investigating officer.

7. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing  

on behalf of the appellant/complainant pointed out that  

this case is nothing, but travesty of criminal justice  

and it amounts to total abuse of the process of law.  

The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that though an  

offence punishable under Section 302 was registered as  

back  as  on  6.12.2007,  still  even  after  two  and  half  

years,  the  respondent  No.  1/accused  has  not  been  

arrested.  The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that  

even  now,  the  period  of  eight  months  which  would  

ordinarily have ended in August, is extended by the High  

Court by one month. The learned Senior Counsel pointed  

out that there was no justification, whatsoever, to find  

out any fault in the investigation and indeed the order  

of the High Court is wholly silent on the aspect of  

necessity of transferring the investigation or to do a  

de novo investigation.  According to the learned Senior  

Counsel, the reasons, if any given in the order of the  

High Court, are wholly irrelevant.  The learned Senior  

Counsel  suggested  that  very  unusual  and  disturbing

12

orders have been passed by the High Court in this case,  

such as granting the provisional bail for eight months  

on the spacious ground that the accused had to donate  

his  kidney  to  his  father.   According  to  the  learned  

Senior Counsel, the sole objective on the part of the  

accused has been to hoodwink the process of law to avoid  

his arrest.

8. As  against  this,  Shri  P.S.  Mishra  and  Shri  A.  

Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of  

the respondents supported the order of the High Court  

and contended that the whole investigation was bad and  

tainted in this case, since the investigating officers  

were  influenced  by  the  informant  who  was  a  senior  

officer in Railways, as also by order of a Minister in  

the Cabinet of Bihar Government.  The learned Senior  

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents stated  

that  there  was  nothing  wrong  in  ordering  the  

investigation  by  other  agency  even  after  the  charge  

sheet was filed and for this proposition, the learned  

Senior  Counsel  heavily  relied  on  the  decision  in  

Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2010 (2)  

SCC 200].

13

9. It is on the backdrop of these rival contentions  

that it has to be seen that whether the impugned order  

is justified or not.

10. The basic contention of Shri Lalit, learned Senior  

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that  

there  is  a  total  absence  of  reasons  in  the  impugned  

order  of  the  High  Court  whereby  the  High  Court  has  

directed  the  change  of  investigating  agency.   The  

learned Senior Counsel pointed out that nothing has been  

shown  either  from  the  charge  sheet  which  is  already  

filed against the accused or from any other circumstance  

which justified the change of the investigating agency.

11. A glance at the impugned order suggests that the  

criticism is quite justified.  The Learned Single Judge  

referred to the report of the Superintendent of Police  

dated 27.3.2008 wherein it was allegedly found that the  

investigation was not properly done and it required to  

be  further  investigated  by  the  investigating  officer  

from the angles reported in the supervision report.  A  

letter  dated  29.4.2008  by  the  IG  of  Police  to  the  

Additional  DG  is  also  referred  to  wherein  it  was  

suggested that the father of the deceased had raised  

objections  to  the  supervision  report  of  the  SP,

14

Railways.  Lastly, the Learned Judge has referred to the  

supervision report of the Dy. SP,CID dated 04.06.2008  

wherein  it  was  allegedly  mentioned  that  the  

investigation was lacking on some counts and this was  

probably on account of the fact that the investigation  

was influenced by the father-in-law of the informant.  

The  Learned  Judge  has  also  referred  to  the  further  

argument that there could have been no motive on the  

part of the accused to murder the girl who was in love  

with him.  The circumstance is also referred to that  

father  of  the  accused  who  was  a  Senior  Advocate  

practicing in the same Court had also consented to the  

said marriage between the accused and the deceased.  The  

Learned Judge has also taken stock of the argument that  

the girl herself had written a letter expressing that  

she apprehended danger from her family members, meaning  

the family members of the informant.  We must, however,  

express  that  the  Learned  Judge  has  not  given  any  

findings on these arguments.  The Learned Judge has not  

referred to the arguments on behalf of the informant and  

has  expressed  that  there  was  a  counter  affidavit  on  

behalf of the informant.

15

12. A very strange course thereafter seems to have been  

taken by the Court (in view of the voluminous documents  

produced  on  record  by  both  the  parties).   The  Court  

observed:-

“this Court considers it appropriate to take assistance  by  getting  the  matter  examined  by  a  senior  police  official of the rank of DGP to put the controversy, as  to whether proper investigation has been done in the  case or not, at rest.  Therefore, this Court suggested  to  each  of  the  Learned  Counsel  for  the  parties  to  propose three names of DGP rank officers of the State  for this Court to extend request to anyone of them to  assist this Court by examining all the documents and  records connected with the case and submit his view to  this Court for consideration.”

13. We  are  extremely  surprised  by  this  course  

undertaken.  Firstly, we don’t know on what basis would  

the  parties  have  suggested  the  names  of  the  police  

officers  of  the  DGP  rank.  Secondly,  we  also  don’t  

understand  as  to  in  what  manner  would  the  opinion  

expressed by any such officer have been relevant in the  

decision as to whether the investigation was proper or  

not.  It was the task of the Court and it was the Court  

who would have decided the question of the fairness of  

the  investigation.   The  High  Court  proceeded,  though  

this  course  was  not  acceptable  to  the  complainant’s  

party, and considered the arguments on behalf of the  

complainant.  Unfortunately, we don’t see any findings

16

recorded or any active consideration of the questions  

raised by the informant/ complainant.  It was suggested  

by  the  appellant/complainant  that  there  was  another  

supervision  report  of  the  SP  dated  30.4.2009  which  

supported the filing of the charge sheet and it was in  

pursuance of that report that the charge sheet came to  

be filed.  The complainant had also urged that the so-

called earlier supervision report dated 27.3.2008 was a  

concocted  document.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant/complainant  

challenged the genuineness of the document and contended  

that it was fabricated.  The complainant went to the  

extent of saying that the father of the accused who was  

a Senior Advocate of the Court was trying to influence  

the investigation and in fact even the report of the  

Forensic  Science  Laboratory  regarding  the  handwriting  

and the genuineness of the letter of the deceased was  

not genuine.  Ultimately, it was urged before the High  

Court that at the stage, particularly, after the charge  

sheet was already filed, the High Court would not be  

justified in interfering under Section 482, Cr.P.C.  The  

only reason that we find for the unusual course that the  

High Court has taken is that there was no supervision  

report at the instance of the DIG of Police or Inspector

17

General, Railway or DGP.  The High Court has recorded a  

finding:-

“thus, it is clear that the case has been supervised  till now only by the officers up to the rank of SP and  none else.  Even the said report of the CID is also by  an officer below the rank of SP (CID).”

14. Thus, the High Court went only on the consideration  

that there was no supervision report of a particular  

level of DIG, IG or DGP of Police.

15. It is only on the basis of that reason that the  

High Court wanted to get the assistance of DGP level  

police  officer  to  advise  it  on  the  correctness  or  

otherwise of the investigation.  The High Court went on  

to record:-

“however,  at  this  stage,  in  view  of  the  submissions  advanced by Mr. Madhup on behalf of the informant, this  Court  is  all  the  more  convinced  that,  to  put  the  controversy  at  rest  once  for  all,  matter  should  be  examined by any officer of the rank of DGP so that this  Court  may  get  assistance  from  an  experienced  senior  police  officer  of  the  highest  rank  to  come  to  some  conclusion with regard to merits of this application, if  at all it is required to be done at the final stage of  hearing.”   

It is then that the High Court went on to select one  

Manoj Nath and gave him the task of forming his opinion  

in respect of:-

“(i) whether investigation of the case is complete from  all angles and the case is to be tried on the basis of

18

materials  and  report  placed  on  record  by  the  investigating officer only or;

(ii) whether there are some loopholes and lacunae  in the investigation which necessitates further or fresh  investigation of the case and if necessary by a more  experienced and specialized agency, and/or;

(iii) what further steps, if any, are required to be  taken in the case in the ends of justice, so that the  guilty may not escape and the innocent may not suffer  due to laches on the part of the officers of the State.”

We really fail to understand as to under what provision  

the High Court acted, more particularly, when the charge  

sheet  has  already  been  filed.   We  are  not  on  the  

question of the High Court seeking opinion of the DGP.  

In our opinion, such a course was not necessary unless  

the High Court had examined the charge sheet which was  

filed and recorded its findings that the investigation  

was  not  properly  conducted  or  it  required  further  

investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. The High  

Court has not even looked into the charge sheet nor has  

it examined the same.

16. It is also extremely surprising that the respondent  

No. 1/accused should have moved the High Court instead  

of moving the Sessions Judge before whom the matter was  

pending after all cognizance was taken by the Magistrate  

on the basis of the charge sheet.  Thereafter he also  

proceeded to commit the matter for trial by the Sessions

19

Judge and the matter was pending before the Sessions  

Judge.  Under such circumstance, we completely fail to  

understand the propriety of the accused moving the High  

Court, firstly through his mother and secondly himself,  

more particularly, under Section 482, Cr.P.C. instead of  

going before Sessions Judge where the prosecution was  

pending and claiming further investigation under Section  

173(8) Cr.P.C.

17. The High Court has not even considered the question  

of its own jurisdiction in the matter by conveniently  

observing that it is a matter which is to be considered  

at the stage of final hearing of the case.  Therefore,  

it is clear that the High Court has not applied its mind  

also  and  had  pushed  the  matter  up  to  21.6.2010  for  

receiving the opinion from the DGP.  In our opinion, all  

this was not permissible nor was it warranted.   

18. The  High  Court  should  have  seen  through  the  

incessant  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  No.  

1/accused to stall the proceedings one way or the other  

and to avoid arrest.  It was way back in 2008 that the  

anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court  

and yet the accused has remained outside without being  

arrested.   Again  the  investigation  against  him  is

20

complete, the charge sheet has been filed for offence  

committed by him, and still he has managed to remain  

out.  In fact, the lack of bona fides on the part of the  

accused should have put the High Court on guard.  A  

Section  482  application  on  the  plea  that  the  

investigation  is  not  proper  at  the  instance  of  the  

accused who does not choose to even appear before the  

Sessions Judge before whom the matter is pending, should  

immediately  have  put  the  High  Court  on  guard  before  

entertaining  the  petition  which  has  no  bona  fides  

whatsoever.  Be that as it may, we desist from saying  

anything about the quality of investigation, necessity  

of further investigation or the necessity of the further  

investigation  at  the  hands  of  some  other  agency,  

particularly, in view of the fact that the charge sheet  

has  already  been  filed  in  this  matter  and  at  least  

nothing was shown before us or before the High Court  

suggesting that there was a necessity of any further  

investigation, additional investigation or investigation  

by some other agency.  Merely, because there appeared to  

be no supervision of the DIG level or IG level officer,  

the  High  court  could  not  have  simply  called  for  the  

opinion  of  DGP  without  recording  any  finding  on  any  

justification.   We  do  not  see  any  justification

21

whatsoever  nor  was  anything  shown  to  us.   We  will,  

therefore, not go into that question, but the stance of  

the  High  Court  in  issuing  direction  not  to  take  any  

further step in the proceedings arising out of Arrah  

Rail G.R.P. Case No. 73/2007 till 21.6.2010 is wholly  

unwarranted.

19. Heavy reliance was placed on Rubabbuddin Sheikh v.  

State of Gujarat & Ors. [2010 (2) SCC 200].  However, we  

do not find any factual similarity.  That was a case  

where  the  extreme  step  was  taken  by  this  Court,  

particularly,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  police  

officers  who  were  investigating  officers,  themselves  

came under the cloud because of the allegations against  

them.  Such is not the position here.  This is apart  

from the fact that factually we do not see any reason  

why the extreme step is required to be taken in this  

case even after the charge sheet has been filed.

20. This  Court  had  taken  that  unusual  course  in  

Rubabbuddin Sheikh’s case (cited supra), in the words of  

the Court:-

“‘in the facts and circumstances of the present case and  to  do  complete  justice  in  the  matter  and  to  instill  confidence in the public mind.”

22

Before this course was undertaken, the Court had found  

out factual discrepancies apparent on the face in the  

eight Action Taken Reports and the charge sheet.  It was  

also noted that the crime was committed by the police  

personnel themselves while investigation conducted was  

not  at  all  satisfactory.  We  do  not  find  any  such  

circumstance in the present case.  We may also refer to  

the  observations  made  in  another  ruling  reported  as  

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Anr. V. State of Gujarat  

[2009  (6)  SCC  332].   In  paragraph  13  of  the  said  

decision, this Court has observed:-

“it is beyond any cavil that ‘further investigation’ and  ‘reinvestigation’ stand on different footing.  It may be  that in a given situation a superior Court in exercise  of its Constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226  and  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India  could  direct  a  “State” to get an offence investigated and/or further  investigated  by  a  different  agency.   Direction  of  a  reinvestigation,  however,  being  forbidden  in  law,  no  superior Court would ordinarily issue such a direction.”

21. The  Court  further  referred  a  decision  in  

Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar  [2008 (5) SCC 413] and  

observed therein:-

“at this juncture it would be necessary to take note of  Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the  above section it is evident that even after completion  of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of  the Code, the police has right to further investigate  under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or  re-investigation.”

23

22. The plea raised by the accused herein was not for  

further investigation under Section 173 (8) but for re-

investigation  by  some  other  agency.   In  the  

circumstances  of  this  case,  the  accused  had  not  

justified his plea at all for re-investigation or fresh  

investigation by another agency.  On its own, the High  

Court did not go into that exercise to decide as to  

whether the investigation was required to be done by any  

other agency. It required help of DGP level officer and  

his opinion to decide whether the earlier investigation  

was done properly or not.  We are afraid that was not  

the task. To decide so was the task of the Court alone  

and no opinion could have been sought for, particularly,  

in the circumstances of this case.  Nothing seems to  

have been established which would justify calling for  

such  opinion.   However,  we  are  not  going  into  that  

question as we have already stated earlier.  Once the  

charge sheet was filed, ordinarily it could only be the  

power of the Court to decide upon its correctness or  

otherwise.   

23. We  are  not  at  all  impressed  by  the  Section  482  

application  firstly  filed  by  the  mother  of  the  

respondent No. 1/accused and then by the respondent No.

24

1/accused himself.  We do not see any reason why the  

High Court should have entertained such application at  

all, particularly, in view of the complete lack of bona  

fides on the part of the respondent No. 1/accused.  That  

application  was,  therefore,  liable  to  be  dismissed  

straightaway.   Since  technically  the  matter  is  still  

pending before the High Court, we only issue a direction  

to the High Court to dismiss the same.  The impugned  

order of the High Court is set aside and, therefore,  

this appeal succeeds.  The Sessions Judge before whom  

the  matter  is  pending  shall  proceed  with  it  in  

accordance with law.

    ……………………………..J.      [V.S. Sirpurkar]

   ……………………………..J.     [Cyriac Joseph]

August 16, 2010; New Delhi.