Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court held that the power of the Magistrate to order investigation is not limited to pre cognizance stage. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice V Ramasubramanian, Justice Surya Kant and Justice RF Nariman.   

Facts   

• On 22nd December 2009, Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel lodged an FIR on behalf of Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai Patel (residing abroad), alleging blackmail by Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya over land near Surat. 
• The land, measuring 8296 sq. meters, was allegedly purchased by the Patels in 1975 from Bhikhabhai and Bhikiben. 
• On 7th June 2008, the heirs of Bhikhabhai, along with Vinubhai and Manubhai Malaviya, published a notice accusing the Patels of land-grabbing. 
• Vinubhai allegedly demanded Rs. 2.5 crores to settle the dispute and used forged documents to claim the land. 
• The heirs of Bhikhabhai applied to cancel old revenue entries on 12th June 2008. 
• Police filed a charge-sheet on 22nd April 2010; the Magistrate took cognizance on 23rd April 2010 under IPC Sections including 420, 465, and 384. 
• Discharge and further investigation applications by the accused (filed on 10th and 14th June 2011) were rejected on 24th August 2011 and 21st October 2011. 
• A request for FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC (filed on 26th July 2011) was rejected on 9th September 2011. 
• On 10th January 2012, the Sessions Court allowed further investigation; IO R.A. Munshi took over on 6th March 2012 and filed reports on 9th March and 10th April 2012. 
• The High Court quashed the Sessions Court order and the investigation reports, ruling on 13th June 2012 that the Magistrate had no power to order further probe post-cognizance. 
• The High Court remanded one revision case; on 23rd April 2016, the Sessions Court rejected the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. 
• This rejection is under challenge in Special Criminal Application No.3085 of 2016, which is pending.

Issue Involved  

• Whether, after a charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding? 

Observations 

• The police have the power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, even after filing the charge-sheet, until the trial commences. 
• The Magistrate also has the power to order further investigation after receiving a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, based on the definition of “investigation” under Section 2(h) CrPC. 
• Section 156(3) CrPC allows a Magistrate to order “such investigation”, which includes further investigation under Section 173(8), and is not limited to the pre-cognizance stage. 
• The Magistrate can direct further investigation to ensure a fair trial and complete justice, particularly when new facts arise. 
• No provision in the CrPC expressly bars the Magistrate from ordering further investigation, and such power must be read into Section 173(8). 
• It is a matter of judicial propriety that police must seek the court’s permission before carrying out further investigation and filing a supplementary charge-sheet. 
• Earlier judgments restricting a Magistrate's power after issuance of process are overruled, specifically in the cases of Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel, Athul Rao, and Bikash Ranjan Rout. 
• The Magistrate’s discretion to order further investigation must be exercised judiciously, depending on the facts of each case and in accordance with the law. 
• Substantial justice and uncovering the truth take precedence over concerns about delay, especially when fresh facts that affect culpability or innocence emerge.

Conclusion 

• A Magistrate is legally empowered to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, even after receiving the police report, to ensure justice and uncover the truth. 
• This power must be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the facts of each case, and the ultimate goal of a fair and complete criminal trial.