2024 INSC 746 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ SLP Criminal No. 4360 of 2022)

K. Vadivel …Appellant (s)

Versus

K. Shanthi & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment

and order dated 30.04.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the

Madras High Court in Criminal R.C. (MD) No.533 of 2020.

By the said judgment, the High Court has, by a cryptic order,

and long after final arguments had been concluded on

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.09.30
19.10.2019 in the trial court, ordered further investigation in
15:15:47 IST
Reason:

the matter. The aggrieved accused is before this Court with a

1
grievance that the direction was not justified in law

particularly when already an attempt by the wife of the

deceased to summon certain witnesses under Section 311 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) had been

rebuffed by the Trial Court and the High Court as early as in

December 2019.

3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the

High Court was, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering

further investigation?

4. The basic facts essential for adjudication of the present

controversy are as follows:-

5. On 31.03.2013, a First Information Report (FIR) being

Crime No. 27 of 2013 was registered on the complaint given

by one Padikasu (subsequently examined as PW-1) stating

that when he along with the deceased Kumar were doing their

morning walk around 5:00 AM and were returning back,

three persons alighted from a car with weapons and hacked to

death, the deceased Kumar.

2
6. On 11.07.2013, a final report was filed setting up eight

accused for trial, including the appellant.

7. On 20.12.2016, PW-1 - Padikasu was examined. He

testified that among the two persons who alighted from the

car to attack Kumar, Ganapathy had a sickle in his hand;

upon seeing them he began to run; that he phoned the family

of deceased Kumar and spoke to the son of the deceased.

PW-1 testified that he had not seen the hacking. He further

testified that within five to ten minutes, the family members

of Kumar came to the place and that he went to the Police

Station at 6:45 AM and gave the complaint.

8. PW-1-Padikasu was declared hostile and sought to be

cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination

he denied the suggestion that he had told the Police that he

saw Ganapathy and Vadivel (appellant) hacking the deceased

and Chinnaraja (the other accused) stabbing the deceased

with a spear. On a question by the Court, he reiterated that he

saw Ganapathy among the persons who alighted having a

3
sickle and since he was perturbed and began to run though he

saw others, he was not in a position to identify them. His

deposition was recorded on 20thof December 2016.

9. Thereafter, on 18th of March 2017, the first respondent

Shanthi - wife of the deceased was examined. She

corroborated the phone call received from PW-1 and also

stated that PW-1 told her that Ganapathy, Vadivel (appellant)

and Karthick were the accused who hacked her husband with

sickle and that while Chinnaraj and Selvaraj stabbed her

husband with spear-stick, Madhavan, Murugan and

Palaniyappan caught hold of her husband. She also testified

that when after receiving the phone call she went to the place

of the incident with Sathappa Subramanian and Subramanian,

her brothers-in-law and that her own brothers also

accompanied her. On 18.03.2017 itself, PW-3, Subbaiah and

PW-4, Duraimurugan were examined.

10. On 25.07.2019, PW-1 - Padikasu was recalled at the

behest of accused A1 and A2 wherein he stated that he did

4
not specifically state to the Police about A1 Ganapathy being

present in the place of occurrence and that he had only stated

that three unidentified persons had attacked the deceased. He

further added that he mentioned about A1 Ganapathy only on

account of the Police threatening him.

11. On 19.10.2019, on the conclusion of the trial, final

arguments were heard, and the case was fixed for filing of

written arguments.

12. At this stage, on 22.10.2019, Respondent No. 1

(examined as PW-2/wife of the deceased) filed Crl.

M.P.No.245 of 2019 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. She

contended that PW-1 - Padikasu has given false evidence;

that the Investigating Officer has failed to enquire the proper

eye-witnesses; that the direct eye-witnesses to the

occurrence-K. Ganesh S/o Kumar, P. Karmegam S/o

Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o

Padikasu and C. Andiappan S/o Chinnaiah have not been

examined and that they deserve to be summoned. According

5
to the application filed by respondent No. 1, these witnesses

would speak about the cell phone recovered by the Police

from the occurrence spot and that the cell phone was of

Nokia Brand holding the sim of Vodafone company which

belonged to her. She averred that the Police failed to produce

the material object and that the cell phone and call details

ought to have been produced by the Police. In view of the

above, she prayed that the additional witnesses be summoned

and examined.

13. The accused opposed the Section 311 petition by

pointing out the delay of 6 years and 9 months in filing the

petition and also about respondent No.1 (PW-2) not

whispering about any of these facts during her examination.

They contended that the persons sought to be examined were

none other than her son, brother, brothers-in-law and other

close relatives.

14. The State also filed its response opposing the

application by averring that when the statement of

6
Respondent No. 1 was recorded nothing was mentioned by

her and that during the investigation also nothing of the

nature as alleged now was forthcoming; that even while

being examined as PW-2 the applicant had not mentioned

these facts; that no phone was seized and no sim card was

seized and that investigation was properly conducted and

final report filed.

15. On 29.11.2019, the Trial Judge dismissed the

application filed by respondent No. 1. The Court observed

that the application was filed after the examination of the

prosecution witnesses had concluded and when the case was

posted for questioning the accused under Section 313. That

respondent No. 1 was already examined as PW-2 on

18.03.2017 and that on that day itself, together with her,

Subbaiah alias Subramanian and Duraimurugan were also

examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. The Court

observed that though the power under Section 311 is

available to the Court to reach a just decision, it cannot be

7
exercised unless the facts and circumstances of the case make

it apparent as otherwise it would result in causing serious

prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.

The Court observed that though the power is available, it has

to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

16. The first respondent, vide Crl. O.P (MD) No. 18701 of

2019, challenged the order dated 29.11.2019 dismissing the

petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

The State vehemently opposed the said petition by reiterating

its contention in the courts below. The High Court, by its

order of 16.12.2019, dismissed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of

2019 holding in its operative portion as follows:

“9. It is seen that P.W.1 is the person who stated to have

accompanied the deceased victim at the time of
occurrence. He had been examined by the respondent
police. He had not stated anything as if the occurrence
was witnessed either by other persons other than him. He
was examined in chief before the trial court on
18.03.2017. On that date also, he has not spoken about
the occurrence having been witnessed by any other
persons other than him. Further, during cross
examination, he has also resiled from his earlier
statement. P.W.2 has been examined in chief on
8
 18.03.2017. She has also not spoken about the additional
witnesses having seen the occurrence or that they have
been left out by the prosecution to be added as witnesses
in the final report. Further, after final report has been filed
on 11.07.2013, if it is true that the eyewitnesses have
been left out, she would have filed the petition for further
investigation even at that time, which has also not been
done. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
petition is filed much belatedly only for the purpose of
delaying the trial.

10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Judge.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed.”

17. Taking a cue, as it were, from the observations of the

High Court that the first respondent would have filed a

petition seeking for further investigation at that time if

eyewitnesses have been left out, the first respondent in

January, 2020 filed Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 61/2014

before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions

Judge with a prayer for directing the State to conduct further

investigation or reinvestigation by examining the related

occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the

9
application and submit additional (or) supplementary charge-

sheet. In the application, it was averred that the Investigating

Officer had failed to enquire Kattarimani who had

accompanied her husband-deceased Kumar and also had

failed to examine proper eyewitnesses; that PW-1 Padikasu

had given false statements and evidence and that Padikasu

had expressed fear and mentioned about the threatening

influences of the accused and other pressures brought by the

accused; that investigation has been carried out in a

haphazard manner; that there is lack of collection of material

evidence; that the cell phone used by PW-1 Padikasu and the

cell phone of deceased Kumar has not been properly secured

and placed for tracing the call details. That non-examination

of R. Natarajan, M. Muthu, S. Ramasamy who are the

occurrence witnesses and eye witnesses K. Ganesan S/o Late

Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o

Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o

10
Chinnaiah are designed at the behest of the inspector of

police.

18. It will be noticed from the application that insofar as the

eyewitnesses, who according to the first respondent were not

enquired, the names are common as mentioned in her earlier

Section 311 application. Under the category of occurrence

witnesses, she has added three names which surfaced for the

first time in this application. This aspect will be considered

later in this judgment.

19. The application was strongly opposed by the accused.

The accused, in their counter, averred that the application was

not maintainable without the consent of the public prosecutor

and that the misconceived application was intended to fill up

the lacunae in the prosecution; the allegation that any threat

to witnesses were denied and it was contended that no such

complaint was made in the last seven years about any such

threats being administered and even on 18.03.2017 when the

respondent no. 1 (PW-2) along with her brothers PW-3 and

11
PW-4 were examined, no such complaint was made. The

accused further averred that further investigation cannot be

ordered at the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the

instance of victims/complainants and it can only be done at

the behest of the investigating agency. The accused further

averred that after the section 311 Cr.P.C. petition, namely,

Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of 2019 was dismissed even

Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination had been concluded and

thereafter the accused had concluded oral arguments and filed

written arguments. So contending, they had prayed for the

dismissal of the petition for further investigation.

20. The State also opposed the application stating that the

case has been investigated properly and charge-sheet filed;

that the respondent no. 1 has recorded her statement and her

earlier application to examine additional witnesses has been

dismissed and that the present application is only with an

intent to drag the proceeding.

12
21. The trial court dismissed the petition for further

investigation by its order of 23rd July, 2020. The trial court

held that the respondent no. 1 (PW-2) in her examination on

18.03.2017 in court did not speak anything as to about what

she is mentioning now in the application. That final report

was filed as early as on 11.07.2013 and if her contention is

correct, she would have filed a petition for further

investigation at that very time. The trial court further held

that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post

cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of

victims/complainants or at the instance of anyone else except

the investigating agency and that the petition was only filed

to prolong the proceeding.

22. The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the

High Court to which the accused filed a counter reiterating

the contentions. By the impugned order, without any

discussion whatsoever and holding the following in the

operative portion, the High Court allowed the application:

13
 “10. It is seen that an opportunity to examine additional
witness was not given by this Court on the ground that
the petitioner has not filed a petition for further
investigation. In the above circumstances, dening (sic.) a
relief of further investigation may cause prejudice to the
petitioner. It is stated that P.W.1 turned hostile. This is a
murder case. For the above reasons, it is decided that
further investigation is necessary. The order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2020 in S.C.No.61 of 2014 dated
23.07.2020 on the file of the learned Additional District
Judge, Pudukottai is set aside. The investigation agency is
hereby directed to take up the case for further
investigation and to complete the investigation, after
examining all the witnesses referred by the petitioner and
to file a additional chargesheet within a period of three
months.

11. On receipt of the additional chargesheet, the trial

Court is directed to frame charges afresh and to proceed
with the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously
as possible.”

23. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on

14.03.2022. By an order of 16.08.2022, this Court, while

issuing notice, stayed the operation of the impugned order. It

appears that before the filing of the Special Leave Petition,

the additional charge-sheet also came to be prepared on

02.12.2021.

14
24. We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior

advocate, for the appellant as well as Shri Amit Anand

Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State as

well as Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior advocate, for the

respondent No. 1 (wife of the deceased).

25. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contends

that the present application filed by respondent no. 1 is a

disguised attempt to reopen the earlier proceedings under

Section 311 which attained finality; that after framing of

charges, respondent no. 1, who is not a complainant, cannot

file an application for further investigation under Section

173(8) of Cr.P.C.; that the trial court had no jurisdiction to

entertain the application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. after

framing of charges; that no grounds have been made out for

further investigation and that the High Court ought not to

have interfered with the order of trial court in the exercise of

its revisional jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel relied on

several judgments of this Court to support the contentions.

15
26. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State

and the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1

strongly defended the impugned order. They contended that

the interest of justice is paramount and it will even trump the

need to avoid any delay being caused in the proceedings; that

the investigating agency has carried out further investigation

in compliance with the impugned order and prepared the

additional charge-sheet on 02.12.2021 bringing out certain

new facts and material; that no prejudice is caused to the

defence as the material will be furnished to the accused

persons and they will have ample opportunity to put forth

their defence. To support their stand, learned senior counsel

referred to several precedents.

27. We have carefully considered the submissions of the

learned counsels for the parties, perused the records as well

as written submissions filed by them.

16
28. The legal position on the aspect of further investigation

is fairly well settled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, pursuant to the recommendation of the Law

Commission, in its 41st Report, Section 173(8) has been

expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy that may

have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:

“173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to

preclude further investigation in respect of an offence
after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to
the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the
officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further
evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of
sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation
to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”

29. The question really is, under what circumstances could

this power be invoked and whether on the facts of this case, is

a further investigation warranted.

30. There was some debate at the Bar as to whether the

Addl. District and Sessions Judge before whom the

17
application was filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section

173(8) after the conclusion of the evidence could have

ordered further investigation. The premise of the argument

was even though in the present case the Addl. District and

Sessions Judge has not ordered and it was the High Court

which had ordered it, while exercising jurisdiction under

Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. The contention was

that as per the law laid down by this Court in Vinubhai

Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

(2019) 17 SCC 1, further investigation could at best have

been ordered till the commencement of the trial.

31. In the present case, though the Trial Judge rejected the

application, the High Court has ordered further investigation.

Considering the fact that we are inclined to set aside the order

of the High Court, on merits, we deem it unnecessary to

discuss the issue of jurisdiction.

18
32. Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant

circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed

to decide the needfulness of further investigation or

reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the

parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 3

SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. State

(Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where

fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons

not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or

where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a

person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may

be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the

genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court.

33. However, the further investigation cannot be permitted

to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had

already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further

investigation, in this case respondent no. 1, has not whispered

about anything new in her evidence as is now sought to be

19
averred in the application. There must be some reasonable

basis which should trigger the application for further

investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction

that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further

investigation. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of

Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 347), this Court held as

under:-

“13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979) 2

SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because
cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective
investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may
be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so
permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the
more so in this case, that the police should inform the
court and seek formal permission to make further
investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of
being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need
for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual
offences found during course of proper investigation is as
much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious
disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the
aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further
investigation, the same can certainly be done as
prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be
further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in
the way of further investigation if that would help the
court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as
well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have
not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.”

20
34. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors.,

(2013) 5 SCC 762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the

power of Magistrate to direct further investigation had the

following to say:

“41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further

investigation” is a significant power which has to be
exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve
the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and
unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the
investigating agency and the court in its supervisory
capacity is required to ensure the same. Further
investigation conducted under the orders of the court,
including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its
own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the
filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary
report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report.
This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections
173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in
terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”

35. It is essential to note that this Court emphasized that

though power to order further investigation is a significant

power it has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional

cases and to achieve the ends of justice (see Devendra Nath

Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2023) 1 SCC 48, para 45).
21
Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered

is within the discretion of the Magistrate and the said

discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in

accordance with law. This Court also held that in an

appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the

investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete

justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to

direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This

Court reiterated the principle that even under Section 482

Cr.P.C. the wide powers are to be exercised fairly with

circumspection and in exceptional cases.

36. In Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 dealing

with the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI, this Court

had the following to say:

“47. ….We are conscious of the fact that though a

satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective
investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the

22
 precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-
investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or
the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a
prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the
attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated
and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further
investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and
mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the
endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice
on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed
through a committed, resolved and a competent
investigating agency.”

37. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case,

we find that for the following reasons the direction for further

investigation is absolutely unwarranted:-

i. The application for further investigation was filed in

January 2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. too had been filed as early as

on 11.07.2013.

ii. On 20th December, 2016, PW-1 Padikasu was

examined, he was recalled and cross-examined on

25.07.2019.

23
iii. Respondent No. 1 (who is the applicant for further

investigation) herself was examined on 18.03.2017.

There is no whisper in her deposition about what she

now seeks to contend in the application for further

investigation. There was nothing that had prevented her

from deposing in the box about any failure of the

investigating officer, to enquire Kattarimani or any

person concerned; about R. Natrajan, M. Muthu and S.

Ramasamy being occurrence witnesses and about

K.Ganesan S/o Late Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o

Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam

S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah being

eye witnesses, and about how such failure has caused

prejudice.

iv. In fact, seeking the examination of these five witnesses

mentioned hereinabove, first respondent filed

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which came to be

dismissed by the trial court on 29.11.2019 and was

24
 confirmed by the High Court. The application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. itself was filed on 22.10.2019, that

is after a period of about six years after the filing of the

charge-sheet.

v. It is only when the High Court dismissed her petition

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that she had not made

any prayer for further investigation that she filed the

present application in January, 2020. At the stage when

she filed the application for further investigation, the

accused had concluded oral arguments and had also

filed written arguments.

vi. The trial court dismissed the application stating that the

respondent no. 1 when examined as PW-2 did not speak

anything about what she had mentioned in her

application and that though the final report was filed as

early as on 11.07.2013, respondent no. 1 has filed the

application for further investigation only in January,

2020. Though, the trial court held that no further

25
 investigation could be ordered at the post cognizance

stage, we have, as explained above, not proceeded on

that reasoning, since that is clearly erroneous.

vii. The High Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever

and has not set out any legal principle which is relevant

and applicable to the facts. All that is said is the Section

311 petition of the respondent no. 1 has been denied on

the ground that she has not filed a petition for further

investigation; that denial of relief would cause prejudice

to respondent no. 1; that PW-1 has turned hostile and

that being a murder case, it is decided to order for

further investigation. Not one of the legal principles

adverted to hereinabove has been considered by the

Court.

viii. As pointed out hereinabove, the failure to claim further

investigation at that stage was not the only basis for the

High Court to reject the revision against the dismissal of

the Section 311 application. The High Court had given

26
 other detailed reasons also like PW-1 and PW-2 not

whispering about the additional witnesses, when they

deposed in Court.

38. We are convinced that ordering the additional charge

sheet to be taken on record at this stage pursuant to the

further investigation will not be in accordance with law. It

will be contrary to the settled principles as laid down by this

Court. We have also to satisfy ourselves examined the

additional charge sheet placed before us. Primarily, apart

from explaining the motive which is already set out in the

evidence of PW-2, there is a reference to three of these

witnesses named in this application as having come to rescue

of the deceased after hearing the noise raised by the deceased.

It is now alleged that A-5 tried to prevent the said two

witnesses from approaching Kumar and threatened them with

the sickle. It is also alleged that at that point these witnesses

saw A-1 and A-4 committing overt acts on the deceased.

27
39. As pointed out earlier, when the application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.10.2019, the State, in its

response and in the arguments before the Court vehemently

opposed the application. Even before the High Court in the

Revision filed against the dismissal of the application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State had expressly contended that the

respondent no. 1 was examined more than five times by the

investigating officer and even in her deposition in court had

not adverted to any of these aspects.

40. Before the trial court and the High Court in the present

set of proceedings concerning the application for further

investigation, the State had opposed the prayer contending

that the investigation of the case has been done properly and

charge-sheet had been duly filed arraigning all the allegedly

involved individuals.

41. It is only in this Court that the State has vehemently

defended the order. A counter affidavit was filed by the State

28
in this Court in September, 2024 without offering any tenable

justification for the need for further investigation. We direct

that for all these reasons the additional charges ought not to

be taken on the record of the trial Court.

42. A brief postscript. While it is true that delay in trial will

cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be

made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to

hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not

exist. This case is a classic example of the latter category.

The FIR was filed on 31.03.2013 and the charge-sheet on

11.07.2013. At the fag end of the trial in October 2019, on

the eve of the final arguments, the first round of applications

under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which

culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019.

43. Soon thereafter in January, 2020, virtually the same

grounds which had been rejected earlier were rehashed in the

form of an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on

behalf of the respondent no. 1. The State, which had hitherto

29
opposed all the applications up to the High Court, turned

turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no. 1 in this Court

without offering any tenable justification as to how the earlier

investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial lacked

credibility.

44. The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the

process have contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven

years having elapsed after the incident, the trial has still not

concluded. No doubt, the High Court allowed the further

investigation which we have today reversed. The judgment of

the High Court also gave no valid justification for ordering a

further investigation.

45. The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at

large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be

available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is beyond

cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of

rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be

disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the

30
parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid

justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need

to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly.

The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the

citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake

that faith and confidence.

46. The legal profession has an important role to play in the

process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie

lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. We are

constrained to observe this because of late we notice that

pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable

averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is

especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and

criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we are left

to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of

what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before

appending their signatures. These misadventures directly

impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency

31
and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases

which are crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and

vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form

of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such

tactics. If we have desisted from such a course in this case, it

is only because the High Court allowed the petition and it is

here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the

petition for further investigation.

47. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we set

aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in

Criminal RC (MD) No. 533 of 2020. Consequently Cr. M.P.

No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 61/2014 filed by the respondent no. 1

before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge for

further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would

stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view of the

dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated

02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is,

accordingly, allowed.
32
48. We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh,

the trial should be concluded and judgment pronounced

within eight weeks from today.

…....…………………J.
(B.R. Gavai)

.…...…………………J.
(K.V. Viswanathan)
New Delhi;
September 30, 2024.

33