Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court observed the limitations on ordering further investigations under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. It ruled that requests for further investigation must be based on new evidence or materials that could significantly impact the case, rather than mere speculation.  

• Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held in the matter of K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.  
• The court observed that fishing expeditions are not permissible, reinforcing the need for a reasonable basis before permitting additional inquiries. 

What was the Background of K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors. Case? 

• An FIR was registered on 31st March 2013, regarding the murder of a person named Kumar based on the complaint of one Padikasu (PW-1). 
• A charge sheet was filed on 11th July 2013, naming eight accused persons, including the appellant. 
• During the trial:  
  • PW-1 (Padikasu) was examined on 20th December 2016. 
  • Respondent No. 1 (deceased's wife) was examined as PW-2 on March 18, 2017. 
  • PW-1 was recalled and cross-examined on 25th July 2019. 
• After final arguments were heard on 19th October 2019, Respondent No. 1 filed:
  • First, an application under Section 311 CrPC on 22nd October 2019, seeking to examine additional witnesses 
  • This was dismissed by both the trial court and High Court in December 2019. 
• In January 2020, Respondent No. 1 filed a new application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC:  
  • The trial court dismissed this application. 
  • The High Court allowed it in revision, 
  • This led to an additional charge sheet being filed on 2nd December, 2021. 
• The appellant challenged the High Court's order directing further investigation through a Special Leave Petition filed on 14th March  2022. 
• Key timeline points:  
  • Time between incident and charge sheet: About 3.5 months. 
  • Time between charge sheet and first Section 311 application: About 6 years. 
  • Total time elapsed since incident: Over 11 years without trial conclusion. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that further investigation cannot be permitted as a "fishing and roving enquiry" when police have already filed a charge sheet. 
• The Court noted that Respondent No. 1 (deceased's wife) had not mentioned anything about additional witnesses or investigation failures during her examination as PW-2 on March 18, 2017. 
• The Court observed that the High Court failed to provide any substantive legal reasoning for ordering further investigation, only citing:  
  • The denial of the Section 311 petition 
  • Potential prejudice to Respondent No. 1 
  • PW-1 turning hostile 
  • The case being a murder case 
• The Court found it significant that the State had initially opposed further investigation at both trial court and High Court levels, only changing its stance before the Supreme Court without providing tenable justification. 
  • The Court distinguished between legitimate delays for genuine grounds and unjustified delays, categorizing this case as the latter. 
• The Court emphasized the importance of speedy justice as a facet of rule of law, stating that even if parties attempt to delay proceedings without justification, courts must act to prevent such delays. 
• The Court expressed concern about the filing of frivolous pleadings and petitions with "outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments," particularly in family law proceedings. 
• The Court stated that the case had been delayed for eleven years without conclusion, contrary to the legitimate expectation of timely justice for victims, accused, and society at large. 
• The Court determined that adding the additional charge sheet to the record at this stage would be contrary to settled legal principles. 

What is Section 193 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) mandates that upon completing an investigation, the officer in charge must submit a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense. 
• This report, commonly known as a police report or charge sheet, must detail whether an offense appears to have been committed, the names of the accused, the nature of evidence collected, and whether the accused have been arrested.  
• The provision also requires that in cases where the accused has been released on bail, the report must state whether the complainant has been informed of their right to object to such release. 
• Under new criminal law this provision is given under Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 

Legal Provisions of Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 

• Section 193 of BNSS deals with Report of police officer on completion of investigation. 
• Temporal Requirements:  
  • All investigations must be completed without unnecessary delay. 
  • For specific offenses (sections 64-68, 70-71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4, 6, 8, 10 of POCSO Act), investigations must be completed within two months from the date of information recording. 
• Reporting Requirements:  
  • Upon completion, the officer must forward a report to an empowered Magistrate. 
  • Electronic communication is permitted for report submission. 
• The report must contain specified elements including: 
  • Names of parties 
  • Nature of information 
  • Names of persons acquainted with case circumstances  
  • Whether an offense appears committed and by whom 
  • Arrest status of accused 
  • Release status on bond/bail 
  • Custody forwarding information  
  • Medical examination reports for specific offenses 
• Communication Obligations:  
  • Officers must inform investigation progress to informant/victim within 90 days. 
  • Communication can be through any means, including electronic. 
  • Action taken must be communicated to the original informant as per State Government rules. 
• Supervisory Provisions:  
  • Where appointed, superior officers may direct further investigation pending Magistrate orders. 
  • Reports may need to be submitted through superior officers as per State Government directives. 
• Documentation Requirements:  
  • All relevant documents for prosecution must be forwarded with the report. 
  • Statements of proposed prosecution witnesses must be included. 
  • Officers may request exclusion of statement parts deemed not relevant or inexpedient. 
• Further Investigation Provisions:  
  • Further investigation is permitted after the initial report submission. 
  • Additional evidence requires forwarding of further reports. 
  • During trial, further investigation requires Court permission. 
  • Such an investigation must be completed within 90 days. 
  • The court may extend the 90-day period. 
• Procedural Safeguards:  
  • Magistrates can make orders regarding discharge of bonds. 
  • Specified number of report copies must be submitted for accused. 
  • Electronic communication of reports is considered a valid service.