Supreme Court Rules Magistrates Can Order Further Investigation Post-Cognizance Until Trial Commences

Land-grabbing case clarifies Magistrate's supervisory powers under CrPC Sections 156(3) and 173(8), overruling recent judgments limiting such authority.

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat reaffirmed and clarified the scope of a Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation in criminal cases even after cognizance has been taken and summons issued, but before the trial begins with framing of charges.

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2009 involving allegations of land fraud and extortion concerning agricultural land near Surat, Gujarat. The FIR accused Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others of blackmail and forging documents to grab land owned by Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai Patel. During the criminal proceedings, the accused filed applications for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which were rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that post-cognizance, the Magistrate lacked power to order further investigation.

The Sessions Court initially allowed further investigation, but the Gujarat High Court reversed this, holding that the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation ceases after cognizance and summons issuance. The High Court also criticized the Investigating Officer for irregularities in submitting interim reports to the Sessions Court rather than the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court, in a detailed analysis, overruled the High Court's restrictive interpretation. It examined the statutory provisions including Sections 156(3), 173(8), and 190 of the CrPC, the definitions of “investigation,” “inquiry,” and “trial,” and relevant precedents. The Court emphasized that:

- The power under Section 156(3) to direct investigation is a wide supervisory power available to the Magistrate throughout the pre-trial stage until charges are framed.

- Section 173(8) explicitly permits further investigation even after a police report is submitted.

- The trial, as per precedent, commences only after framing of charges, not at the stage of cognizance or summons issuance.

- Ensuring a fair and just investigation is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, which demands procedural fairness in criminal trials.

- It would be a “travesty of justice” to deny the Magistrate authority to order further investigation when fresh evidence or facts emerge before trial commencement.

- The Magistrate may exercise this power suo motu or on application, depending on case facts.

- The Court overruled prior conflicting judgments which curtailed the Magistrate’s power post-cognizance.

However, the Court also clarified that the power to order “reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” (de novo) is not vested in the Magistrate; only “further investigation” into the same case is permissible.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment insofar as it denied the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation post-cognizance, but upheld it on the merits of the particular application which related to a separate set of facts amounting to a new complaint. The Court directed registration of a fresh FIR based on a communication from the Commissioner of Revenue concerning forged revenue entries and ordered that investigation be conducted by a senior officer.

The Court also stayed the trial in the original FIR until the fresh investigation report is filed and cognizance taken, leaving the trial court to decide on joinder or separate trials thereafter.

This judgment has significant implications for the criminal justice system in India by affirming the Magistrate’s supervisory role over investigation up to the trial commencement stage, thus safeguarding the rights of both the accused and victims to a fair trial supported by a proper investigation.

Statutory provisions

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 2(d), 2(g), 2(h), 156(1), 156(3), 167(2), 173(2), 173(6), 173(8), 190(1)(a), 200, 202, 204, 227, 228, 240, 246, 251, 311, 319, 391

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1605578