Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Magistrate can order Further investigation after taking Cognizance - Orissa HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed that just when an offence has been adjudicated, judicial magistrates still have the authority to compel further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat, a three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court from 2019 was cited by a single judge bench led by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar to clarify the legal position. After the Court overturned several earlier inconsistent rulings, it held,

Thus, it is evident that the Magistrate's authority under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is fairly broad. After all, it is this judicial authority that must be convinced that the police have conducted a legitimate inquiry. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Magistrate must have access to all necessary powers, including incidental or implied powers, in order to ensure that a "proper investigation"—defined as a fair and just investigation by the police—takes place. This, of course, includes the authority to order additional investigations after receiving a report under Section 173(2). In fact, even by text, the "investigation" mentioned in Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code would include all proceedings for the gathering of evidence carried out by a police officer, which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Thus, it is evident that the Magistrate's authority under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is fairly broad. After all, it is this judicial authority that must be convinced that the police have conducted a legitimate inquiry. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Magistrate must have access to all necessary powers, including incidental or implied powers, in order to ensure that a "proper investigation"—defined as a fair and just investigation by the police—takes place. This, of course, includes the authority to order additional investigations after receiving a report under Section 173(2). In fact, even by text, the "investigation" mentioned in Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code would include all proceedings for the gathering of evidence carried out by a police officer, which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC."

In light of this, the trial court's contested order is hereby reversed. The petitioner's request would be granted as a result of the current ruling, and the magistrate would provide the proper directives regarding further inquiry as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C."

Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs State of Odisha

Latest Legal News