Submission of challan

If after completion of investigation and sending challan report prepared under S. 173, Cr.P.C., it is felt or highlighted that during already conducted investigation, certain aspects regarding basic/constituting elements of the offence or version of the accused could not be investigated, new facts/better evidence or further information has become available which has direct/essential/vital nexus with alleged crime, proclaimed offender in the case has been arrested and important piece of evidence like recovery of weapon of offence is to be collected and other allied matters to be investigated, defects of vital nature in already conducted investigation has been marked/detected/pointed out, already conducted investigation remained unsatisfactory due to non-availability of required evidence or through induction of false evidence due to corrupt behavior of Investigating Officer (concerned), then, non-conducting of further or fresh/re-investigation would virtually amount to putting a seal on human error and with no opportunity to make amends although it be possible to do so

Police as State agency should be as much interested as any other agency concerned in the administration of justice, to find out the truth regarding crime and lay the whole facts before the Court

Statutory functions of police as investigating agency and Courts are complementary to each other without overlapping

Fact that previous investigation had yielded certain results does not act as a hurdle or a deterrent for the police in reaching the truth if additional facts/circumstances are brought to light help in its discovery

No embargo exists on the transfer of investigation from one police officer to the other and to carry out further or fresh/re-investigation of the case even after submission of challan in the Court.

If after submission of challan in the Court and forwarding police file with the same, further or fresh/re-investigation is going to be ordered and police file is required then providing proper written intimation in this regard to the Trial Court is very much necessary.

Prosecution case was that the accused was found to be in possession of a 30 bore pistol along with a magazine containing one live bullet

Contention of accused was that the case was an offshoot of main case registered under S.392, P.P.C. in which he had been acquitted

Accused was not a previous convict or hard and a dangerous criminal

Since the accused was acquitted from the charge of main case, therefore, his involvement in the connected crime was a question which was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses

All the witnesses in the case were police officials, therefore, question of tempering of prosecution evidence did not arise

Case had been challaned and the accused was no more required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation

Accused had made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused sought quashing of FIR on the ground that all the FIRs were in respect of one and same transaction executed at the time for sale of rickshaws

Held; first FIR was lodged against three dishonoured cheques given by the accused to the complainant against purchase of 56 CNG rickshaws pursuant to a transaction executed in 2019

Second FIR was lodged for two dishonoured cheques and was in respect of sale of 20 rickshaws to the accused following a transaction executed in 2018/2019

Transactions appeared to be distinct in every dimension from each other and were done at different points of time

Mere nature of transactions being the same i.e. sale and purchase of the rickshaws between the same parties did not make them as one and same incident to be probed only in one FIR

Third FIR was altogether different and was lodged for commission of offences of breach of trust, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Ss. 420 & 406, P.P.C.

High Court observed that since reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted, the accused had a remedy under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case might be before the Trial Courts for the same relief

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Simple certainty that challan of the case has been recorded, is no ground for retaining concession of bail to a blamed if in any case conditions assemble around would build up the justification for presenting his defence to be of further enquiry.

Challan had been submitted before the Trial Court and statements of three out of six prosecution witnesses had been recorded

Stance of the petitioner that he had committed no offence and false FIR was lodged against him, was a question to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence, which exercise should not be done by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner was seeking quashing of the FIR to his extent whereas two other accused persons involved in the case were not party before the court, therefore, partial quashing of FIR was not permissible

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR wherein he, along with others, was alleged to have committed murder of two persons by means of axes and dandas

Contentions of petitioner were that the High Court had acquitted a co-accused person by disbelieving the prosecution case and that his case stood on the same footing

Challan of the case had been submitted before the Trial Court wherein the petitioner was implicated

High Court observed that it would be appropriate to afford opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence and establish its case

Petitioner firstly had to approach the Trial Court and avail the remedy provided under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where challan in murder case have been put in Court and the case is under trial, superior court normally exercise restraint in granting bail, because of the reason that findings in such cases may affect outcome of trial which does not mean that bail should invariably be refused even if case of accused is found to be that of further inquiry.

Such act, however, does not prejudice the rights of complainant party to file a complaint even in case of disposal of the case.

Submission of challan is a fresh ground for accused to move fresh bail application.

Officer incharge of a Police Station under S.154, Cr.P.C., was legally bound to register the F.I.R. in the relevant book

Mere lodging of F.I.R., by no means, curtailed the power of the Investigating Officer concerned, to investigate the occurrence, or otherwise of the information conveyed

If the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that the allegation, put forward against accused were false, concocted or fabricated; and no evidence could be collected to hold accused responsible for commission of the offence, he could legally recommend the accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; and also place him in column 2 of the report under S.173, Cr.P.C., to be discharged from the charges levelled against accused

Officer incharge of Police Station, or any one else, had no power to refuse to reduce into writing the relevant information of a cognizable offence, in the relevant register under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Not mandatory, or incumbent upon the officer incharge of concerned Police Station to forthwith arrest nominated accused, after registration of the case, when there existed no likelihood of absconsion of accused, or apprehension of tampering and hampering with prosecution evidence

Where a public servant was charged with a criminal case Government need not suspend, in every cases, such public servant

If a public servant was arrested, he would proceed on leave, and when the Government come to the conclusion that he had prima facie committed an offence, might proceed further to suspend his services.

After investigating case and submission of final report, police is left with no authority to reinvestigate matter once again

All evidence collected by police is placed before Court for determination of innocence or guilt of accused person.

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.

Submission of challan was no ground to refuse bail.