http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

                                     REPORTABLE             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2008           (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1105 of 2007)

Ramachandran                                            .. Appellant

                          Versus

R. Udhayakumar & Ors.                         ..Respondents

                     JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.   Leave granted.

2.   Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on a petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

filed by respondent no.1 under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’).     The prayer

was to direct the respondent no.2 the State of Tamil Nadu

represented    by   its   Secretary,   Government    of   Home

Department to withdraw the litigation in Crime no.39/2004 on

the file of Inspector of Police, Palayanoor Police Station,

Sivagangai District and to entrust the same to the file of

Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ‘CBI’).     They are

respondent nos.5 and 6 in the present appeal.       Respondent

no.1 had filed the petition seeking for direction to re-

investigate the case by the CBI in an alleged case of murder by

respondent no.1. There were totally 59 witnesses in the case.

The High Court disposed of the petition, inter alia, with the

following directions:

          "8. Under the above facts and circumstances            of the case in the interest of justice, the case            in Crime No.39/2004 on the file of the fourth            respondent stands transferred to the Deputy            Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Madurai            who shall entrust this case to a competent and            efficient inspector of Police for the purpose of            re-investigation in this case. The Inspector of                                                               2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

         Police who is nominated by the Deputy           Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D.       Shall           afresh investigate the matter and file the final           report within a period of three months from           the date of receipt of a copy of this order from           this Court.     The fourth respondent shall           forthwith hand over the case records in crime           No.39/2004 to the officer to the nominated by           the   Deputy     Superintendent      of   Police,           C.B.C.I.D., Madurai. The Petitioner stands           ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected           miscellaneous petition is closed."

3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

background facts are as follows:

    On   16.7.2004   crime    case   was   registered   against

respondent no.1 and other accused persons for alleged

commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,

324, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

‘IPC’). On 4.8.2004 Criminal O.P. no.444/2004 was filed by

the appellant before the Madras High Court seeking transfer of

investigation in the case to some other Investigating Officer.

On 24.3.2005 charge sheet no.18/2005 was filed by the

Inspector of Police against respondent no.1 and 8 other

                                                             3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

accused persons for commission of offence punishable under

Sections 148, 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

On 25.4.2005 on the basis of the representation given by the

father    of     respondent    no.1,    the   Additional   District

Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai filed a report in view of

G.O. No.14/ADSP/Crime/Sivagangai/2005 and concluded

that further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code

was necessary in the case to find out the real culprit. Since,

there was no progress even after filing of the charge sheet, the

appellant approached the High Court seeking for a direction to

the Inspector of Police to execute the NBWs issued against 7

of the original 9 accused including respondent no.1 since the

Inspector was colluding with the accused.         The High Court

ordered SP., Sivagangai to arrest the absconding accused

persons. On 27.3.2006 an application in terms of Section 173

(8) of the Code being Criminal M.P. No.2227/2006 was filed by

the Inspector of Police, Palayanoor Police Station, before the

learned        Judicial   Magistrate,    Manamadurai,      seeking

permission to further investigate the case.       The permission

                                                               4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

was granted. On 3.4.2006 the Inspector investigating the case

wrote to the Deputy Director of Prosecution seeking his

opinion as to whether the case was required to be transferred

to C.B.C.I.D.   On 10.4.2006 legal opinion was given by the

Deputy Public Prosecutor stating that the case ought to be

transferred to CBCID wing.      On 20.11.2006, Criminal O.P.

No.9175 of 2006 was filed by respondent no.1 before the High

Court seeking for a direction for reinvestigation of the case by

the CBI.   On 18.12.2006 learned Single Judge directed the

Inspector of Police nominated by the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, CBCID to investigate the matter afresh and

thereafter file the final report.   On 5.4.2007, Criminal M.P.

No.1/2007 was filed in the said Criminal O.P. by the Inspector

of Police, Crime Branch, CID, Sivagangai District, Madurai

Wing before the High Court of Madras at Madurai seeking

further six months time to complete the investigation and file

the final report.   The impugned order passed by the High

Court is the order dated 18.12.2006.

                                                            5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

4.   It is the stand of the appellant that in an application

under Section 482 the direction as given could not have been

given.   It is stated that there was no scope for fresh or re-

investigation in view of what is provided in Section 173(8) of

the Code.

5.   Learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the order

of the High Court.

6.   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. This was highlighted by

this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Ors.

(1998 (5) SCC 223). It was, inter alia, observed as follows:

                                                              6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

         "24. The dictionary meaning of "further"           (when used as an adjective) is "additional;           more; supplemental". "Further" investigation           therefore is the continuation of the earlier           investigation and not a fresh investigation or           reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping           out the earlier investigation altogether. In           drawing this conclusion we have also drawn           inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8)           clearly envisages that on completion of further           investigation the investigating agency has to           forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or           reports -- and not fresh report or reports --           regarding the "further" evidence obtained           during such investigation."

7.   In view of the position of law as indicated above, the

directions of the High Court for re-investigation or fresh

investigation are clearly indefensible.   We, therefore, direct

that instead of fresh investigation there can be further

investigation if required under Section 173 (8) of the Code.

The same can be done by the CB (CID)

as directed by the High Court.

8.   The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

                                                           7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

                     ............................... J.                (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

              ...............................J.                (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, May 13, 2008

                                                  8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

9