{"file_name": "2024_10_1_17_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 746\n\nK. Vadivel \nv. \nK. Shanthi & Ors.\n\n(Criminal Appeal No. 4058 of 2024)\n\n30 September 2024\n\n[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nUnder what circumstances could the power be invoked for further \ninvestigation  and whether  on the facts, further  investigation  was \nwarranted.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  –  s.  178(3)  –  Further \ninvestigation  –  Applications  filed  by  the  first  respondent \nfor  directing  the  State  to  conduct  further  investigation  or \nre-investigation  by  examining  the  related  occurrence  and \neyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and \nsubmit  additional/supplementary  charge-sheet  –  Dismissed \nby the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be \nordered  at  the  post  cognizance  stage  –  However,  the  High \nCourt allowed the application – Correctness: \n\nHeld: Contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to \nbe singularly  evaluated  and  analyzed  to decide  the  needfulness \nof further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and \nmete out justice to the parties – However, the further investigation \ncannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the \npolice had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for \nfurther  investigation,  has  not  whispered  about  anything  new  in \nher evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application – \nThere  must  be  some  reasonable  basis  which  should  trigger  the \napplication  for  further  investigation  so  that  the  court  is  able  to \narrive  at  a  satisfaction  that  ends  of  justice  require  the  ordering/\npermitting of further investigation – Though power to order further \ninvestigation is a significant power it has to be exercised sparingly \nand in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice – On \nfacts, the direction for further investigation absolutely unwarranted – \nOrdering the additional charge sheet to be taken on record at this \n\n* Author\n\n\f2 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nstage pursuant to the further investigation will not be in accordance \nwith law – All the stakeholders in the process have contributed to \nthe  delay  and  in  spite  of  eleven  years  having  elapsed  after  the \nincident,  the  trial  has  still  not  concluded  –  High  Court  allowed \nthe  further  investigation  without  giving  valid  justification  for  the \nsame  –  Denial  of  speedy  and  timely  justice  can  be  disastrous \nto rule of law in the long term – Even if the parties involved in a \ncase  themselves,  with  no  valid  justification  attempt  to  delay  the \nproceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and stop such attempt \ninstantly – Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks \nmerit should not be instituted in a court – Pleadings/petitions with \noutrageous  and  ex  facie  unbelievable  averments  are  made  with \nno inhibition whatsoever – These directly impinge on the rule of \nlaw,  because  they  add  to  the  pendency  and  the  consequential \ndelay in the disposal of other cases – Such frivolous and vexatious \nproceedings to be met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary \ncosts to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics – Thus, the \njudgment of the High Court set aside as also application filed by \nthe respondent no. 1 before the trial court for further investigation \nu/s.  173(8)  –  In  view  thereof,  the  additional  charge  sheet  would \nnot be taken on record. [Paras 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 43-47]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nVinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2019] \n15  SCR  936  :  [2019]  17  SCC  1;  Pooja  Pal  v.  Union  of  India  & \nOrs.  [2016]  11  SCR  560  :  [2016]  3  SCC  135;  Ram  Lal  Narang \nv. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 2 SCR 923 : [1979] 2 SCC \n322; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2004] \n3  SCR  762  :  [2004]  5  SCC  347;  Vinay  Tyagi  v.  Irshad Ali  alias \nDeepak & Ors. [2013] 5 SCC 762; Devendra Nath Singh v. State \nof Bihar & Ors. [2023] 1 SCC 48; Himanshu Kumar and Others \nv. State of Chhattisgarh and others [2022] 11 SCR 724 : [2022] \nSCC OnLine SC 884 – referred to.\n\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n\nList of Acts\n\nList of Keywords\n\nFurther  investigation;  Re-investigation;  Charge-sheet;  Inherent \npowers; Delay; Rule of law; Denial of speedy and timely justice; \nFrivolous and vexatious proceedings; Sanctions; Exemplary costs; \nAdditional charge sheet.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n3\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4058 \nof 2024\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021 of the High Court \nof Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLRC (MD) No. 533 of 2020\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nJayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Purushothaman Reddy, Shivansh Dubey, \nVinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellant.\n\nAmit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, \nR. Sudhakaran, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, \nAlagiri  K,  Sabarish  Subramanian,  Ms.  Devyani  Gupta,  Vishnu \nUnnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, B. Sarathraj, Chandra \nBhushan Tiwari, Kaustubh Shukla, Sanket Vashistha, Ms. Samridhi \nSrivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nK.V. Viswanathan, J.\n\n1. \n\nLeave granted.\n\n2.  The present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment and order \ndated 30.04.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court \nin  Criminal  R.C.  (MD)  No.533  of  2020.  By  the  said  judgment,  the \nHigh  Court  has,  by  a  cryptic  order,  and  long  after  final  arguments \nhad been concluded on 19.10.2019 in the trial court, ordered further \ninvestigation in the matter. The aggrieved accused is before this Court \nwith a grievance that the direction was not justified in law particularly \nwhen  already  an  attempt  by  the  wife  of  the  deceased  to  summon \ncertain witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, \n1973  (Cr.P.C.)  had  been  rebuffed  by  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High \nCourt as early as in December 2019.\n\n3.  The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court \nwas, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering further investigation?\n\n4.  The basic facts essential for adjudication of the present controversy \n\nare as follows:-\n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f4 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n5.  On  31.03.2013,  a  First  Information  Report  (FIR)  being  Crime  No. \n27 of 2013 was registered on the complaint given by one Padikasu \n(subsequently examined as PW-1) stating that when he along with \nthe  deceased  Kumar  were  doing  their  morning  walk  around  5:00 \nAM and were returning back, three persons alighted from a car with \nweapons and hacked to death, the deceased Kumar.\n\n6.  On 11.07.2013, a final report was filed setting up eight accused for \n\ntrial, including the appellant.\n\n7.  On  20.12.2016,  PW-1  -  Padikasu  was  examined.  He  testified  that \namong the two persons who alighted from the car to attack Kumar, \nGanapathy  had  a  sickle  in  his  hand;  upon  seeing  them  he  began \nto run; that he phoned the family of deceased Kumar and spoke to \nthe  son  of  the  deceased.  PW-1  testified  that  he  had  not  seen  the \nhacking. He further testified that within five to ten minutes, the family \nmembers of Kumar came to the place and that he went to the Police \nStation at 6:45 AM and gave the complaint.\n\n8.  PW-1-Padikasu  was  declared  hostile  and  sought  to  be  cross-\nexamined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination he denied the \nsuggestion that he had told the Police that he saw Ganapathy and \nVadivel (appellant) hacking the deceased and Chinnaraja (the other \naccused) stabbing the deceased with a spear. On a question by the \nCourt, he reiterated that he saw Ganapathy among the persons who \nalighted having a sickle and since he was perturbed and began to \nrun though he saw others, he was not in a position to identify them. \nHis deposition was recorded on 20thof December 2016. \n\n9.  Thereafter,  on  18th  of  March  2017,  the  first  respondent  Shanthi  - \nwife  of  the  deceased  was  examined.  She  corroborated  the  phone \ncall  received  from  PW-1  and  also  stated  that  PW-1  told  her  that \nGanapathy, Vadivel (appellant) and Karthick were the accused who \nhacked her husband with sickle and that while Chinnaraj and Selvaraj \nstabbed  her  husband  with  spear-stick,  Madhavan,  Murugan  and \nPalaniyappan caught hold of her husband. She also testified that when \nafter receiving the phone call she went to the place of the incident \nwith Sathappa Subramanian and Subramanian, her brothers-in-law \nand  that  her  own  brothers  also  accompanied  her.  On  18.03.2017 \nitself, PW-3, Subbaiah and PW-4, Duraimurugan were examined. \n\n10.  On  25.07.2019,  PW-1  -  Padikasu  was  recalled  at  the  behest  of \naccused A1  and A2  wherein  he  stated  that  he  did  not  specifically \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n5\n\nstate to the Police about A1 Ganapathy being present in the place of \noccurrence and that he had only stated that three unidentified persons \nhad  attacked  the  deceased.  He  further  added  that  he  mentioned \nabout A1 Ganapathy only on account of the Police threatening him. \n\n11.  On 19.10.2019, on the conclusion of the trial, final arguments were \nheard, and the case was fixed for filing of written arguments.\n\n12.  At this stage, on 22.10.2019, Respondent No. 1 (examined as PW-2/\nwife of the deceased) filed Crl. M.P.No.245 of 2019 under Section \n311 of the Cr.P.C. She contended that PW-1 - Padikasu has given \nfalse  evidence;  that  the  Investigating  Officer  has  failed  to  enquire \nthe  proper  eye-witnesses;  that  the  direct  eye-witnesses  to  the \noccurrence-K. Ganesh S/o Kumar, P. Karmegam S/o Periyakaruppan, \nK. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Andiappan \nS/o  Chinnaiah  have  not  been  examined  and  that  they  deserve  to \nbe summoned. According to the application filed by respondent No. \n1, these witnesses would speak about the cell phone recovered by \nthe Police from the occurrence spot and that the cell phone was of \nNokia Brand holding the sim of Vodafone company which belonged \nto  her.  She  averred  that  the  Police  failed  to  produce  the  material \nobject and that the cell phone and call details ought to have been \nproduced by the Police. In view of the above, she prayed that the \nadditional witnesses be summoned and examined. \n\n13.  The accused opposed the Section 311 petition by pointing out the \ndelay of 6 years and 9 months in filing the petition and also about \nrespondent  No.1  (PW-2)  not  whispering  about  any  of  these  facts \nduring her examination. They contended that the persons sought to \nbe examined were none other than her son, brother, brothers-in-law \nand other close relatives.\n\n14.  The State also filed its response opposing the application by averring \nthat when the statement of Respondent No. 1 was recorded nothing \nwas mentioned by her and that during the investigation also nothing \nof the nature as alleged now was forthcoming; that even while being \nexamined  as  PW-2  the  applicant  had  not  mentioned  these  facts; \nthat  no  phone  was  seized  and  no  sim  card  was  seized  and  that \ninvestigation was properly conducted and final report filed. \n\n15.  On  29.11.2019,  the  Trial  Judge  dismissed  the  application  filed  by \nrespondent No. 1. The Court observed that the application was filed \n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f6 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nafter  the  examination  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  had  concluded \nand when the case was posted for questioning the accused under \nSection  313.  That  respondent  No.  1  was  already  examined  as \nPW-2 on 18.03.2017 and that on that day itself, together with her, \nSubbaiah alias Subramanian and Duraimurugan were also examined \nas  PW-3  and  PW-4  respectively.  The  Court  observed  that  though \nthe power under Section 311 is available to the Court to reach a just \ndecision, it cannot be exercised unless the facts and circumstances \nof the case make it apparent as otherwise it would result in causing \nserious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. \nThe Court observed that though the power is available, it has to be \nexercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.\n\n16.  The first respondent, vide Crl. O.P (MD) No. 18701 of 2019, challenged \nthe order dated 29.11.2019 dismissing the petition under Section 311 \nCr.P.C. before the High Court. The State vehemently opposed the \nsaid  petition  by  reiterating  its  contention  in  the  courts  below.  The \nHigh Court, by its order of 16.12.2019, dismissed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. \n18701 of 2019 holding in its operative portion as follows:\n\n“9.  It  is  seen  that  P.W.1  is  the  person  who  stated  to \nhave  accompanied  the  deceased  victim  at  the  time  of \noccurrence.  He  had  been  examined  by  the  respondent \npolice. He had not stated anything as if the occurrence was \nwitnessed either by other persons other than him. He was \nexamined in chief before the trial court on 18.03.2017. On \nthat date also, he has not spoken about the occurrence \nhaving been witnessed by any other persons other than \nhim. Further, during cross examination, he has also resiled \nfrom  his  earlier  statement.  P.W.2  has  been  examined  in \nchief on 18.03.2017. She has also not spoken about the \nadditional witnesses having seen the occurrence or that \nthey have been left out by the prosecution to be added as \nwitnesses in the final report. Further, after final report has \nbeen filed on 11.07.2013, if it is true that the eyewitnesses \nhave  been  left  out,  she  would  have  filed  the  petition  for \nfurther investigation even at that time, which has also not \nbeen  done.  Therefore,  this  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that \nthe  petition  is  filed  much  belatedly  only  for  the  purpose \nof delaying the trial. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n7\n\n10.  In  view  of  the  above,  this  Court  does  not  find  any \ninfirmity in the order passed by the trial Judge. Accordingly, \nthis Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”\n\n17.  Taking a cue, as it were, from the observations of the High Court that \nthe  first  respondent  would  have  filed  a  petition  seeking  for  further \ninvestigation at that time if eyewitnesses have been left out, the first \nrespondent in January, 2020 filed Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No. \n61/2014 before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge \nwith a prayer for directing the State to conduct further investigation or \nreinvestigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses \nof the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional (or) \nsupplementary charge-sheet. In the application, it was averred that \nthe Investigating Officer had failed to enquire Kattarimani who had \naccompanied her husband-deceased Kumar and also had failed to \nexamine proper eyewitnesses; that PW-1 Padikasu had given false \nstatements  and  evidence  and  that  Padikasu  had  expressed  fear \nand mentioned about the threatening influences of the accused and \nother pressures brought by the accused; that investigation has been \ncarried out in a haphazard manner; that there is lack of collection of \nmaterial evidence; that the cell phone used by PW-1 Padikasu and \nthe cell phone of deceased Kumar has not been properly secured \nand  placed  for  tracing  the  call  details. That  non-examination  of  R. \nNatarajan, M. Muthu, S. Ramasamy who are the occurrence witnesses \nand eye witnesses K. Ganesan S/o Late Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o \nPeriyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu \nand C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah are designed at the behest of the \ninspector of police. \n\n18. \n\nIt will be noticed from the application that insofar as the eyewitnesses, \nwho according to the first respondent were not enquired, the names \nare  common  as  mentioned  in  her  earlier  Section  311  application. \nUnder the category of occurrence witnesses, she has added three \nnames which surfaced for the first time in this application. This aspect \nwill be considered later in this judgment. \n\n19.  The application was strongly opposed by the accused. The accused, \nin  their  counter,  averred  that  the  application  was  not  maintainable \nwithout the consent of the public prosecutor and that the misconceived \napplication  was  intended  to  fill  up  the  lacunae  in  the  prosecution; \nthe allegation that any threat to witnesses were denied and it was \n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f8 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ncontended that no such complaint was made in the last seven years \nabout any such threats being administered and even on 18.03.2017 \nwhen  the  respondent  no.  1  (PW-2)  along  with  her  brothers  PW-3 \nand  PW-4  were  examined,  no  such  complaint  was  made.  The \naccused further averred that further investigation cannot be ordered \nat the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of \nvictims/complainants  and  it  can  only  be  done  at  the  behest  of  the \ninvestigating  agency.  The  accused  further  averred  that  after  the \nsection  311  Cr.P.C.  petition,  namely,  Crl.  O.P.  (MD)  No.  18701  of \n2019 was dismissed even Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination had been \nconcluded and thereafter the accused had concluded oral arguments \nand filed written arguments. So contending, they had prayed for the \ndismissal of the petition for further investigation. \n\n20.  The State also opposed the application stating that the case has been \ninvestigated properly and charge-sheet filed; that the respondent no. \n1 has recorded her statement and her earlier application to examine \nadditional  witnesses  has  been  dismissed  and  that  the  present \napplication is only with an intent to drag the proceeding. \n\n21.  The trial court dismissed the petition for further investigation by its \norder of 23rd July, 2020. The trial court held that the respondent no. \n1 (PW-2) in her examination on 18.03.2017 in court did not speak \nanything as to about what she is mentioning now in the application. \nThat  final  report  was  filed  as  early  as  on  11.07.2013  and  if  her \ncontention  is  correct,  she  would  have  filed  a  petition  for  further \ninvestigation at that very time. The trial court further held that further \ninvestigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage either \nsuo moto or at the instance of victims/complainants or at the instance \nof anyone else except the investigating agency and that the petition \nwas only filed to prolong the proceeding. \n\n22.  The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the High Court \nto which the accused filed a counter reiterating the contentions. By \nthe impugned order, without any discussion whatsoever and holding \nthe  following  in  the  operative  portion,  the  High  Court  allowed  the \napplication: \n\n“10.  It  is  seen  that  an  opportunity  to  examine  additional \nwitness was not given by this Court on the ground that the \npetitioner has not filed a petition for further investigation. \nIn the above circumstances, dening (sic.) a relief of further \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n9\n\ninvestigation  may  cause  prejudice  to  the  petitioner.  It  is \nstated that P.W.1 turned hostile. This is a murder case. For \nthe above reasons, it is decided that further investigation \nis necessary. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2020 \nin S.C.No.61 of 2014 dated 23.07.2020 on the file of the \nlearned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai is set aside. \nThe  investigation  agency  is  hereby  directed  to  take  up \nthe  case  for  further  investigation  and  to  complete  the \ninvestigation, after examining all the witnesses referred by \nthe petitioner and to file a additional chargesheet within a \nperiod of three months. \n\n11.  On  receipt  of  the  additional  chargesheet,  the  trial \nCourt is directed to frame charges afresh and to proceed \nwith the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously \nas possible.”\n\n23.  The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on 14.03.2022. \nBy an order of 16.08.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed \nthe operation of the impugned order. It appears that before the filing \nof the Special Leave Petition, the additional charge-sheet also came \nto be prepared on 02.12.2021. \n\n24.  We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior advocate, for \nthe appellant as well as Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional \nAdvocate  General,  for  the  State  as  well  as  Shri  S.  Nagamuthu, \nlearned  senior  advocate,  for  the  respondent  No.  1  (wife  of  the \ndeceased). \n\n25.  The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  contends  that  the \npresent application filed by respondent no. 1 is a disguised attempt \nto reopen the earlier proceedings under Section 311 which attained \nfinality; that after framing of charges, respondent no. 1, who is not \na  complainant,  cannot  file  an  application  for  further  investigation \nunder Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.; that the trial court had no jurisdiction \nto  entertain  the  application  under  Section  173(8)  of  Cr.P.C.  after \nframing of charges; that no grounds have been made out for further \ninvestigation  and  that  the  High  Court  ought  not  to  have  interfered \nwith the order of trial court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. \nLearned senior counsel relied on several judgments of this Court to \nsupport the contentions.\n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f10 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n26.  The  learned  Additional  Advocate  General  for  the  State  and  the \nlearned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 strongly defended \nthe  impugned  order. They  contended  that  the  interest  of  justice  is \nparamount and it will even trump the need to avoid any delay being \ncaused in the proceedings; that the investigating agency has carried \nout further investigation in compliance with the impugned order and \nprepared  the  additional  charge-sheet  on  02.12.2021  bringing  out \ncertain  new  facts  and  material;  that  no  prejudice  is  caused  to  the \ndefence as the material will be furnished to the accused persons and \nthey will have ample opportunity to put forth their defence. To support \ntheir stand, learned senior counsel referred to several precedents.\n\n27.  We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels \nfor the parties, perused the records as well as written submissions \nfiled by them. \n\n28.  The legal position on the aspect of further investigation is fairly well \nsettled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pursuant to the \nrecommendation of the Law Commission, in its 41st Report, Section \n173(8) has been expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy \nthat may have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:\n\n“173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude \nfurther investigation in respect of an offence after a report \nunder sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate \nand, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge \nof  the  police  station  obtains  further  evidence,  oral  or \ndocumentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further \nreport  or  reports  regarding  such  evidence  in  the  form \nprescribed;  and  the  provisions  of  sub-sections  (2)  to  (6) \nshall,  as  far  as  may  be,  apply  in  relation  to  such  report \nor reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded \nunder sub-section (2).” \n\n29.  The question really is, under what circumstances could this power \nbe  invoked  and  whether  on  the  facts  of  this  case,  is  a  further \ninvestigation warranted. \n\n30.  There was some debate at the Bar as to whether the Addl. District \nand Sessions Judge before whom the application was filed by the \nrespondent no. 1 under Section 173(8) after the conclusion of the \nevidence could have ordered further investigation. The premise of \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n11\n\nthe argument was even though in the present case the Addl. District \nand Sessions Judge has not ordered and it was the High Court which \nhad ordered it, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 read \nwith 401 of Cr.P.C. The contention was that as per the law laid down \nby this Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of \nGujarat & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 1, further investigation could at best \nhave been ordered till the commencement of the trial. \n\n31. \n\nIn the present case, though the Trial Judge rejected the application, \nthe  High  Court  has  ordered  further  investigation.  Considering  the \nfact that we are inclined to set aside the order of the High Court, on \nmerits, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the issue of jurisdiction. \n\n32.  Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have \nto be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of \nfurther investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete \nout justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. \n(2016)  3  SCC  135,  para  83). As  noticed  in  Ram  Lal  Narang  vs. \nState (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where \nfresh  materials  come  to  light  which  would  implicate  persons  not \npreviously  accused  or  absolve  persons  already  accused  or  where \nit  comes  to  the  notice  of  the  investigating  agency  that  a  person \nalready accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty \nof  the  investigating  agency  to  investigate  the  genuineness  of  the \nsame and submit a report to the court. \n\n33.  However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing \nand roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet \nand the very applicant for further investigation, in this case respondent \nno. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is \nnow sought to be averred in the application. There must be some \nreasonable  basis  which  should  trigger  the  application  for  further \ninvestigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that \nends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation. \nIn Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) \n5 SCC 347), this Court held as under:-\n\n“13.  In  Ram  Lal  Narang  v.  State  (Delhi Admn.)  [(1979) \n2  SCC  322]  it  was  observed  by  this  Court  that  further \ninvestigation  is  not  altogether  ruled  out  merely  because \ncognisance has been taken by the court. When defective \ninvestigation comes to light during course of trial, it may \n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f12 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nbe  cured  by  further  investigation,  if  circumstances  so \npermitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more \nso  in  this  case,  that  the  police  should  inform  the  court \nand seek formal permission to make further investigation \nwhen fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over \nthe matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial \nsince  an  effective  trial  for  real  or  actual  offences  found \nduring course of proper investigation is as much relevant, \ndesirable  and  necessary  as  an  expeditious  disposal  of \nthe matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position \nin  law,  if  there  is  necessity  for  further  investigation,  the \nsame  can  certainly  be  done  as  prescribed  by  law.  The \nmere  fact  that  there  may  be  further  delay  in  concluding \nthe trial should not stand in the way of further investigation \nif that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do \nreal and substantial as well as effective justice. We make \nit clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on \nthe merits of the case.”\n\n34. \n\nIn Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC \n762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the power of Magistrate \nto direct further investigation had the following to say: \n\n“41.  …..The  power  of  the  Magistrate  to  direct  “further \ninvestigation”  is  a  significant  power  which  has  to  be \nexercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the \nends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable \ninvestigation is the obligation of the investigating agency \nand  the  court  in  its  supervisory  capacity  is  required  to \nensure the same. Further investigation conducted under \nthe  orders  of  the  court,  including  that  of  the  Magistrate \nor by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, \nwould lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such \nsupplementary  report  shall  be  dealt  with  as  part  of  the \nprimary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions \nof Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such \nreports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”\n\n35. \n\nIt is essential to note that this Court emphasized that though power \nto  order  further  investigation  is  a  significant  power  it  has  to  be \nexercised sparingly and in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n13\n\nof  justice  (see  Devendra  Nath  Singh  vs.  State  of  Bihar  &  Ors., \n(2023) 1 SCC 48, para 45). Whether further investigation should or \nshould not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate and \nthe said discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in \naccordance with law. This Court also held that in an appropriate case, \nwhere the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper \ndirection and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so \ndemand,  the  inherent  powers  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  could  be \nexercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This \nCourt  reiterated  the  principle  that  even  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C. \nthe wide powers are to be exercised fairly with circumspection and \nin exceptional cases. \n\n36. \n\nIn Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and \nothers,  2022  SCC  OnLine  SC  884  dealing  with  the  prayer  for \ntransfer of investigation to CBI, this Court had the following to say:\n\n“47.  ….We  are  conscious  of  the  fact  that  though  a \nsatisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective \ninvestigation  eroding  its  credence  and  reliability  is  the \nprecondition for a direction for further investigation or re-\ninvestigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or \nthe pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive \nimpediment.  The  contextual  facts  and  the  attendant \ncircumstances  have  to  be  singularly  evaluated  and \nanalyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation \nor re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice \nto the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the \ncourt of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true \nfacts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, \nresolved and a competent investigating agency.”\n\n37.  Applying  the  above  law  to  the  facts  of  the  present  case,  we  find \nthat for the following reasons the direction for further investigation \nis absolutely unwarranted:- \n\ni. \n\nThe  application  for  further  investigation  was  filed  in  January \n2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet under Section 173 \nCr.P.C. too had been filed as early as on 11.07.2013. \n\nii.  On  20th  December,  2016,  PW-1  Padikasu  was  examined,  he \n\nwas recalled and cross-examined on 25.07.2019. \n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f14 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\niii.  Respondent No. 1 (who is the applicant for further investigation) \nherself was examined on 18.03.2017. There is no whisper in \nher  deposition  about  what  she  now  seeks  to  contend  in  the \napplication for further investigation. There was nothing that had \nprevented  her  from  deposing  in  the  box  about  any  failure  of \nthe investigating officer, to enquire Kattarimani or any person \nconcerned;  about  R.  Natrajan,  M.  Muthu  and  S.  Ramasamy \nbeing  occurrence  witnesses  and  about  K.Ganesan  S/o  Late \nKumar, P. Karmagan S/o Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, \nSembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah \nbeing eye witnesses, and about how such failure has caused \nprejudice.\n\niv. \n\nv. \n\nIn  fact,  seeking  the  examination  of  these  five  witnesses \nmentioned hereinabove, first respondent filed application under \nSection  311  Cr.P.C.  which  came  to  be  dismissed  by  the  trial \ncourt  on  29.11.2019  and  was  confirmed  by  the  High  Court. \nThe  application  under  Section  311  Cr.P.C.  itself  was  filed  on \n22.10.2019, that is after a period of about six years after the \nfiling of the charge-sheet. \n\nIt  is  only  when  the  High  Court  dismissed  her  petition  under \nSection 311 Cr.P.C. stating that she had not made any prayer \nfor further investigation that she filed the present application in \nJanuary, 2020. At the stage when she filed the application for \nfurther investigation, the accused had concluded oral arguments \nand had also filed written arguments. \n\nvi.  The  trial  court  dismissed  the  application  stating  that  the \nrespondent  no.  1  when  examined  as  PW-2  did  not  speak \nanything about what she had mentioned in her application and \nthat though the final report was filed as early as on 11.07.2013, \nrespondent no. 1 has filed the application for further investigation \nonly in January, 2020. Though, the trial court held that no further \ninvestigation  could  be  ordered  at  the  post  cognizance  stage, \nwe have, as explained above, not proceeded on that reasoning, \nsince that is clearly erroneous. \n\nvii.  The  High  Court  has  not  recorded  any  reason  whatsoever \nand  has  not  set  out  any  legal  principle  which  is  relevant  and \napplicable to the facts. All that is said is the Section 311 petition \nof  the  respondent  no.  1  has  been  denied  on  the  ground  that \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n15\n\nshe has not filed a petition for further investigation; that denial \nof relief would cause prejudice to respondent no. 1; that PW-1 \nhas turned hostile and that being a murder case, it is decided \nto order for further investigation. Not one of the legal principles \nadverted to hereinabove has been considered by the Court. \n\nviii.  As  pointed  out  hereinabove,  the  failure  to  claim  further \ninvestigation at that stage was not the only basis for the High \nCourt to reject the revision against the dismissal of the Section \n311 application. The High Court had given other detailed reasons \nalso like PW-1 and PW-2 not whispering about the additional \nwitnesses, when they deposed in Court. \n\n38.  We  are  convinced  that  ordering  the  additional  charge  sheet  to  be \ntaken  on  record  at  this  stage  pursuant  to  the  further  investigation \nwill not be in accordance with law. It will be contrary to the settled \nprinciples as laid down by this Court. We have also to satisfy ourselves \nexamined  the  additional  charge  sheet  placed  before  us.  Primarily, \napart  from  explaining  the  motive  which  is  already  set  out  in  the \nevidence of PW-2, there is a reference to three of these witnesses \nnamed in this application as having come to rescue of the deceased \nafter  hearing  the  noise  raised  by  the  deceased.  It  is  now  alleged \nthat A-5  tried  to  prevent  the  said  two  witnesses  from  approaching \nKumar and threatened them with the sickle. It is also alleged that at \nthat  point  these  witnesses  saw A-1  and A-4  committing  overt  acts \non the deceased. \n\n39.  As  pointed  out  earlier,  when  the  application  under  Section  311 \nCr.P.C.  was  filed  on  22.10.2019,  the  State,  in  its  response  and  in \nthe arguments before the Court vehemently opposed the application. \nEven before the High Court in the Revision filed against the dismissal \nof  the  application  under  Section  311  Cr.P.C.,  the Additional  Public \nProsecutor  appearing  for  the  State  had  expressly  contended  that \nthe  respondent  no.  1  was  examined  more  than  five  times  by  the \ninvestigating  officer  and  even  in  her  deposition  in  court  had  not \nadverted to any of these aspects. \n\n40.  Before  the  trial  court  and  the  High  Court  in  the  present  set  of \nproceedings concerning the application for further investigation, the \nState  had  opposed  the  prayer  contending  that  the  investigation  of \nthe case has been done properly and charge-sheet had been duly \nfiled arraigning all the allegedly involved individuals. \n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f16 \n\n41. \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nIt is only in this Court that the State has vehemently defended the order. \nA counter affidavit was filed by the State in this Court in September, \n2024 without offering any tenable justification for the need for further \ninvestigation. We direct that for all these reasons the additional charges \nought not to be taken on the record of the trial Court. \n\n42.  A brief postscript. While it is true that delay in trial will cede to the \npursuit  of  truth,  however,  a  distinction  should  be  made  between \ncases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings \nand cases where such grounds do not exist. This case is a classic \nexample  of  the  latter  category.  The  FIR  was  filed  on  31.03.2013 \nand  the  charge-sheet  on  11.07.2013. At  the  fag  end  of  the  trial  in \nOctober 2019, on the eve of the final arguments, the first round of \napplications  under  Section  311  of  Cr.P.C.  came  to  be  filed,  which \nculminated in its dismissal in December, 2019. \n\n43.  Soon thereafter in January, 2020, virtually the same grounds which \nhad been rejected earlier were rehashed in the form of an application \nunder  Section  173(8)  Cr.P.C.  on  behalf  of  the  respondent  no.  1. \nThe State, which had hitherto opposed all the applications up to the \nHigh Court, turned turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no. \n1  in  this  Court  without  offering  any  tenable  justification  as  to  how \nthe  earlier  investigation  which  had  arrayed  eight  accused  for  trial \nlacked credibility.\n\n44.  The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the process have \ncontributed to the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed \nafter the incident, the trial has still not concluded. No doubt, the High \nCourt allowed the further investigation which we have today reversed. \nThe judgment of the High Court also gave no valid justification for \nordering a further investigation. \n\n45.  The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a \nlegitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within \na reasonable time. It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is \nan important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice \ncan be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties \ninvolved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to \ndelay  the  proceedings,  the  courts  need  to  be  vigilant  and  nip  any \nsuch attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds \non  the  faith  of  the  citizenry  and  nothing  should  be  done  to  even \nremotely shake that faith and confidence. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n17\n\n46.  The  legal  profession  has  an  important  role  to  play  in  the  process. \nAny proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should \nnot  be  instituted  in  a  court.  We  are  constrained  to  observe  this \nbecause of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous \nand  ex  facie  unbelievable  averments  are  made  with  no  inhibition \nwhatsoever. This is especially  so in some family law proceedings, \nboth civil and criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we \nare left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of \nwhat has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending \ntheir signatures. These misadventures directly impinge on the rule \nof  law,  because  they  add  to  the  pendency  and  the  consequential \ndelay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. It is \ntime that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due \nsanctions  in  the  form  of  exemplary  costs  to  dissuade  parties  from \nresorting  to  such  tactics.  If  we  have  desisted  from  such  a  course \nin this case, it is only because the High Court allowed the petition \nand it is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the \npetition for further investigation. \n\n47. \n\nIn  view  of  what  has  been  stated  hereinabove,  we  set  aside  the \njudgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in Criminal RC (MD) \nNo.  533  of  2020.  Consequently  Cr.  M.P.  No  40/2020  in  S.C.  No. \n61/2014 filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Court of Additional \nDistrict and Sessions Judge for further investigation under Section \n173(8) Cr.P.C. would stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view \nof the dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated \n02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is, accordingly, \nallowed.\n\n48.  We  direct  that  after  hearing  arguments  of  parties  afresh,  the  trial \nshould be concluded and judgment pronounced within eight weeks \nfrom today. \n\nResult of the Case: Appeal allowed\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain\n\nK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.\f"}