Gopalakrishnan P. alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Others (2022 KHC 180)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S.173(8), and S.482
In our latest blog post, we’re delving into the world of criminal investigations and the legal system. We’ll be discussing how the courts and law enforcement use their authority carefully, particularly in special cases. We’ll also touch on a part of the law, Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that deals with further investigations. It’s important to understand when and how this power should be used. We’ll talk about the role of the High Court in overseeing these processes and why they should be cautious about getting involved,
Join us as we unpack these legal concepts and principles to better understand how they impact the world of criminal justice.
The gist of the discussions in the above judgments is that the inherent power vested in this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C are to be used judiciously and with great care. These powers should only be exercised in exceptional cases, such as when further investigation appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or initiated with malicious intent to seek revenge against the accused. They can also be invoked when the investigation is barred by any existing law, when the investigating officer’s authority under Section 173(8) is being used in bad faith, or when there is an obvious abuse of power. The exercise of these powers must align with the specific criteria laid out in the provisions themselves.Section 173(8) does not explicitly mandate that further investigation can only be conducted upon obtaining additional materials related to the crime. When new information or additional evidence pertaining to the crime emerges after the final report has been filed, it is both the right and the responsibility of the police to investigate this new information. The purpose is to determine whether there is any substance to these fresh details or if they hold any truth. There should not be arbitrary restrictions on this process unless there are valid reasons to do so.
The High Court should exercise great caution and restraint when considering interference with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases. It should refrain from halting the investigation and/or prosecution unless it is absolutely convinced that:
- The First Information Report (FIR) does not reveal the commission of any offense.
- The allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense.
- The prosecution is legally barred from proceeding.
- The criminal proceeding is evidently tainted with malicious intent.
Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly require the court to hear the accused before issuing a direction for further investigation. This section primarily deals with the powers of the investigating officer to make further investigation when new information or evidence emerges after the filing of the final report.Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly require seeking leave or formal permission from the court to conduct further investigation or to file a supplementary report. However, it has been a customary practice and a matter of propriety that the police inform the court and, in some cases, seek formal permission before proceeding with further investigation.It is well-established that the mere possibility of additional time being required to conclude the trial should not hinder further investigation. The investigating agency should not be restricted solely due to concerns about potential delays, as the primary objective remains the pursuit of truth in the case.
- 2022 KHC OnLine 180
- ILR 2022 (2) Ker. 259
- 2022 KHC 180
- 2022 (2) KLT OnLine 1183
- 2022 (2) KLJ 138