Skip to main content

Magistrate Can ‘Interfere’ If Investigation Is Improper, Unfair

The Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik vs. State of UP, has held that a magistrate has the authority to interfere in a case investigation if it is not going on in a proper or fair manner. In the instant case, a magistrate had dismissed a surrender application filed by a doctor, accused of medical negligence, on the ground that any interference in the investigation cannot be done. In the surrender application, it was requested that various papers, along with surrender application, be sent to the Investigating Officer and after taking into consideration the papers, a report may be called for from the Investigating Officer. After the magistrate rejected the surrender application, the accused approached the High Court. Justice Abhai Kumar said: “The magistrate while passing the impugned order observed that the court cannot interfere in the investigation. The observation of the magistrate can be correct up to a certain extent, but what ‘interfere’ means is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case.” Referring to Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the court observed: “A special duty has been cast by the apex court upon the magistrate while monitoring the investigation. The doctrine of implied power is also applied by the apex court and it even asserted that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has implied power to grant stay, although no such power expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act. It can be inferred that there is no express power to the magistrate regarding the monitoring of the investigation but under Section 156 of the CrPC that implied power is there and magistrate is having whole sole authority to monitor the investigation and in case the investigation is not going on proper or in a fair manner, in that case, magistrate is even having authority to interfere in the investigation. This power, along with the observation, was made by the apex court in Lalita Kumari case. It can be said that more responsibility is cast upon the magistrate in the cases covered under the circumstances referred by the apex court. The Hon’ble apex court in Lalita Kumari case also observed that the circumstances mentioned by the court are not exhaustive and other matters may also be included in that, so the facts and circumstances of every case determines the case. A duty is cast upon the magistrate to look the matter on the merits of the case and, in case it is required, then proper direction may be issued in regard to investigation.” The court further said: “This court is certainly of the view that magistrate is all empowered to monitor the investigation and, in case it is required, then proper direction may also be issued. If in view of the code, certain papers are being filed by the accused to be sent to the Investigating Officer, that right can very well be given to the accused, although the magistrate will refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the papers and further accused can also not claim that papers may be taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer and after taking all those papers, opinion should be found by the Investigating Officer and only then the wanting report be submitted.” But regarding the facts of the case in consideration, the court observed: “Had the applicant tried to submit the papers before the Investigating Officer and had he refused for taking the papers into consideration, only then the right of accused could have accrued for praying the magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer for a proper investigation under Section 156 CrPC.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/magistrate-can-interfere-investigation-improper-unfair-allahabad-hc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...