SHRIRAM MADHAV MORE AND ORS v. ABDUL KHALID ABDUL SAMAD PATEL AND ORS
Scope of Magistrate's Power to Order Further Investigation Post Framing of Charge - Analysis of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and Relevant Supreme Court Precedents.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57886
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: A private complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant) against the Applicant (the Accused) alleging offences under Sections 420, 418, 465, 468, 471, 506(II), 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Complainant alleged that the Accused, who runs a textile machinery business, misrepresented his contacts in the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation and induced the Complainant to enter into an agreement for the transfer of ownership of a sick factory. The Complainant issued cheques to the Accused, but the Accused allegedly did not fulfill the promises and retained a crucial file of accounts. The Vakola Police Station initially submitted a report suggesting it was a civil dispute, but the High Court directed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to conduct a fresh investigation. The EOW also filed an 'A' summary report, which the Magistrate refused to accept, issuing process against the Accused.
- Procedural Posture: The Applicant filed a Criminal Application No. 573 of 2019 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, which directed further investigation after charges were framed. Sudha Kalantry, a partner of the Accused, filed an Intervention Application No. 295 of 2022, which was also considered.
- Issue: Was the learned Metropolitan Magistrate justified in ordering further investigation on the application of the Complainant, particularly after the charge was framed?
- Holding: No, the High Court held that the order of further investigation was not justified and allowed the criminal application, setting aside the Magistrate's order. The application for further investigation was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial from the appropriate stage.
- Reasoning: The Court analyzed various Supreme Court judgments, including Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others V/s. State of Gujarat and Another and Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel V/s. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Ors., to determine the scope of the Magistrate's power to order further investigation after charges have been framed. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from those where further investigation was deemed permissible. The Court emphasized that while Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly prohibit further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, the power to order such investigation must be exercised judiciously. The Court found that the Magistrate had not properly applied the correct ratio from the cited judgments and had overlooked the fact that the police had already investigated the key grievances of the Complainant. The High Court concluded that a fair trial needed to be conducted and that the Complainant could request the Magistrate to consider any new evidence brought on record during the trial.
🔒 For Members Only