Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Magistrate Has No Power To Order Re-Investigation: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir  Quashes Orders for Reinvestigation in Road Accident Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant judgment, has quashed the orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court directing the reinvestigation of a road accident case involving the death of Sarabjeet Singh. The court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, ruled that the Magistrate lacks the authority under the J&K Cr.P.C to order reinvestigation and emphasized that such directions can only be issued by Constitutional Courts.

The case pertains to a fatal road accident on May 20, 2011, in which Sarabjeet Singh, son of respondent Pyara Singh, was killed. The incident occurred when Sarabjeet was hit by a rashly driven scooter. Initially, the police investigation concluded that Sarabjeet was responsible for the accident, leading to the closure of the case under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The High Court made clear that under the J&K Cr.P.C, a Magistrate is not empowered to order reinvestigation. “The investigation made by the police cannot be wiped out by the Magistrate,” Justice Sanjeev Kumar stated. The Magistrate can only direct further investigation if there are issues with the initial probe, but not a reinvestigation, which can only be ordered by Constitutional Courts or under inherent jurisdiction.

The court addressed the rights of the victim or their relatives to file a protest petition. It was noted that while the informant has the right to be notified about the closure report, the victim or their relatives do not inherently have this right unless they are the informant. However, they can still file a protest petition, which the Magistrate should consider if submitted before the final decision on the closure report. “The protest petition filed by the informant or by the complainant without notice shall be considered by the Magistrate,” the judgment clarified.

The court analyzed several stages of investigation under the J&K Cr.P.C and highlighted the procedural obligations of the Magistrate. It emphasized the need for the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XVI of the Cr.P.C if treating a protest petition as a fresh complaint. The court cited various Supreme Court rulings, including Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI, to support its conclusions.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar remarked, “The Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer power upon a Magistrate to direct reinvestigation. The power of reinvestigation is reserved for Constitutional Courts under their inherent jurisdiction.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the procedural boundaries within which Magistrates must operate concerning police investigations and the treatment of closure reports. By setting aside the orders for reinvestigation, the court has reinforced the legal framework governing further and fresh investigations, thereby ensuring adherence to procedural justice. This judgment is expected to influence future cases involving similar legal questions.

 

Date of Decision: April 20, 2024

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Similar News