Court Emphasizes the Importance of Fair Trial, Citing Lack of Justifiable Grounds for Additional Investigation
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, which had allowed further investigation in a long-standing fraud case involving the accused Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry and others. The decision, delivered by Justice S.M. Modak on December 24, 2025, addresses the contentious issue of further investigation after the framing of charges.
The case, rooted in allegations of fraudulent business dealings between the complainant, M/s. Presto Export Ltd., and the accused, M/s. Twist Spin Industries, has witnessed a protracted legal battle. The complainant alleged that an agreement was made in 2003 with the accused for the acquisition of Devagiri Mills, for which substantial payments were made. Despite these transactions, the accused allegedly failed to honor the agreement, leading to the complaint and subsequent legal proceedings.
The controversy intensified when the Magistrate's court ordered further investigation after the charges had been framed, based on the complainant's application pointing out alleged investigative lacunae. The High Court, however, deemed this order unjustified, noting that the initial and subsequent investigations had already been conducted by the Vakola Police Station and the Economic Offences Wing, both resulting in reports against the complainant's allegations.
Justice Modak underscored that while the complainant has the right to highlight investigative faults, such claims must be substantiated by justifiable grounds to warrant further investigation. The judgment references key precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat and Rampal Gautam v. State, emphasizing the conditions under which further investigation may be permissible.
The court highlighted that the Magistrate's reliance on judgments not directly pertinent to the facts of the case, such as Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, was misplaced. The High Court reiterated that justice requires a balance between fair investigation and trial, cautioning against unwarranted extensions of investigation that could delay proceedings.
In setting aside the Magistrate's order, the High Court has directed the trial to proceed from the appropriate stage, ensuring that justice is served without further delay. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to uphold procedural integrity and the rights of both complainants and defendants within the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Power of Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. - Magistrate can allow further investigation at the instance of the complainant even after framing of charge but before commencement of trial, only if justifiable grounds exist, and not at the fag end of the trial.
Statutory provision(s): Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Shri Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836726
