Re-investigation

There is no encumbrance for police to conduct re-investigation or further investigation of a case even if an earlier report under S. 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted before Court and the Court has taken cognizance of the matter

Police is competent to re-investigate and to submit fresh challan on the basis of subsequent investigation

Transfer of investigation is regulated by Art. 18-A of Police Order, 2002

Only impediment in such regard is that re-investigation or further investigation is not permissible after conclusion of trial of criminal case.

Nothing is in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the Investigating Officer from submitting a subsequent report in supersession of his earlier one, either on his own initiative or on the direction of the superior police officer.

No bar exists for re-investigation of a criminal case even after submission of a final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.; however, re-investigation cannot be allowed when a criminal case has finally been disposed of by the Trial Court.

Petitioner was aggrieved of filing of Challan by investigating officer before Trial Court and sought re-investigation into the matter

Validity

Petitioner was named in FIR and he on the basis of investigation was Challaned by police

Court having jurisdiction had already taken cognizance of the offence against petitioner

If petitioner was having feeling that he was innocent and involved in case by police falsely at the instance of complainant party, then he could prove his innocence adequately by putting his defence before Court which had taken cognizance of offence against him

Re-investigation of case was not justified at the cost of trial

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

No provision of law existed preventing an investigating agency from conducting reinvestigation or even multi-investigations after discharging an accused in earlier investigation

Such is subject to condition that investigator has discovered some new evidence connecting accused with commission of offence which were not in his knowledge during earlier investigation

If investigating agency intends to reinvestigate case, right course is to seek permission form Magistrate or a Court which passed for closure for earlier investigation.

Final decision in such matter was made by Capital Development Authority Board and accused was only one of twelve persons against whom reference was intended to be filed

Such remained to be determined during trial as to whether accused had gained any benefit due to any misuse of his authority or had conferred any benefit on company

Expenditure incurred by company in establishing facilities, which were now owned by Capital Development Authority and profits earned by company from operation of facility were also to be ascertained during trial

Executive Board of National Accountability Bureau in its meeting, closed inquiry regarding award of contract in question

Such was one of exceptional circumstances warranting grant of post-arrest bail to accused

Accused had remained incarcerated for a period of five months and reference was not filed

Bail was granted, in circumstances.

Complainant claimed that a Jirga was held and during its proceedings respondents (another set of accused persons) confessed their guilt regarding murder of son of accused, but police did not arrest the said respondents

Validity

Although there was no bar to carry out a fresh investigation even after submission of challan, but circumstances of each criminal case varied from each other and no omnibus rule could be laid to be followed

Re-investigation was always carried out at the instance of influential people for obtaining favourable reports, which in no way assisted the courts in coming to a correct conclusion rather it created more complications

Investigation of a criminal case was sole domain of police and Chief Court did not ordinarily pass orders in matter regarding re-investigation of a criminal case until and unless some extraordinary circumstances existed

Petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Further investigation was continuation of such investigation which culminated in further police report under S. 173(2), Cr.P.C.

If Trial Court had already taken cognizance and trial was initiated, then Trial Court could pass any appropriate order on such further or supplementary report

High Court declined to interfere in the order of 'further investigation' passed by police authorities, as such practice was not strange and singular in nature and police authorities enjoyed powers under statutory provisions

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Conclusion of re-investigation report regarding occurrence of offence would not defeat merits of the case in view of the statements of abductee recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., as well as by Trial Court

Mere statement of victim alone in a rape case was sufficient to connect accused with commission of offence, if the statement of victim had inspired confidence and no ulterior motive and mala fide was spelt out from the averments of FIR supported with other iota of evidence collected by prosecution

Accused failed to make out his case of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, preferred an application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for direction to reinvestigate the matter

Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application

Validity

Door of investigation could never close on submission of police report before court and it remained open for discovery of true facts even during course of trial

Petitioner approached wrong forum, who instead of applying to Trial Court for the purpose, approached Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Petitioner should have approached the Trial Court to get examined crime weapon with recovered empties and for production of witnesses who were not associated with the investigation

Sufficient powers were available to Trial Court under the purview of S. 540, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner having failed to avail remedy provided by law, High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no illegality or irregularity was pointed out

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Grievance of complainant was that after submission of Challan (Investigation Report), before Trial Court, the police could not reinvestigate the matter

Validity

Superior officers of police, in appropriate cases, at the request of complainant or accused party could order for further investigation or reinvestigation in a criminal case by some other officer of police, who could submit report pursuant to such further investigation or reinvestigation along with material or evidence gathered during such investigation before a competent court of jurisdiction

Such report or further investigation or reinvestigation was to be treated merely as an opinion of Investigating Officer and would not be binding upon concerned Magistrate, who was at liberty to pass appropriate order or judgment on the basis of material and evidence available on record

High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent was arrested by police on the allegation of gambling at a public place but Magistrate discharged him of the charge

Validity

Magistrate had lawful authority to grant effective relief to a person arrested or detained by police in absence of sufficient cause or material

Order under S.63, Cr.P.C. passed by Magistrate did not extinguish process of investigation which could proceed in accordance with law until police would submit report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.

When accused was released / discharged by Magistrate under S. 63, Cr.P.C., police could not re-arrest him without order of Magistrate

Order of Magistrate refusing remand and discharging accused did not amount to cancellation of case

Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to pass order of release of respondent and there was no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the order

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were accused in different criminal cases and sought re-investigations of cases after submission of challans in Trial Court

Plea raised by petitioners was that Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) had influenced Investigating officers against them

Validity

Police Investigating officer was not debarred from reinvestigating and submitting fresh report in supersession of his earlier one either on his own initiative or on direction of superior police officials

Challan had already been submitted and thereafter in supersession of charge sheet, successive investigation could not be carried out under the orders of High Court

Investigation had already been completed and it was not found unsatisfactory or it was not alleged that final report under S.173 Cr.P.C. was based on false evidence during investigation due to behaviour of officials concerned, who were allegedly under the influence of SSP

Petitioners did not show any instance of availability of better evidence, therefore, it could not be said that police officers being subordinate to SSP were in his influence, who had submitted charge sheet in arbitrary and capricious manner

Petitioners did not mention that additional facts and additional circumstances would improve investigation in a better manner and would culminate on innocence of accused persons

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Investigating Officer after seeking permission from Trial Court may reinvestigate the matter, and if any material piece of evidence has been missed in earlier investigation, then reinvestigation is permissible.

Re-investigation of the case after submission of challan is not barred, but the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on the court

Material collected by the police is to be weighed and not its opinion.