Topic:-Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The
State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2019
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
PSDA Assignment
Date of Submission: April 21, 2024
By:
Uzma Fazal
Enrollment No. : 36751103821
Under the supervision of : ANUGYA MA’AM
School of Law
Delhi Metropolitan Education, Noida
(affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Delhi)
Session 2021-2026
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of
Gujarat on 16 October, 2019
NAME Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat
CITATION AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 5233
DATE OF October 16, 2019
JUDGEMENT
COURT Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
CASE TYPE CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.478-479 OF 2017
PETITIONER Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors.
RESPONDENT The State of Gujarat and Anr.
BENCH V.Ramasubramanian, Surya Kant, R.F.Nariman
FACTS OF CASE
i. An FIR was lodged by Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel, the authorized representative of
Ramanbhai Bhagubhai Patel and Shankarbhai Bhagubhai Patel, on December 22,
2009. According to the FIR, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya has been attempting to extort
money from Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai, who reside in either the UK or USA,
concerning an agricultural land parcel near Surat, Gujarat, measuring approximately
8296 square meters. The land, which was acquired by Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai
from Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai and his wife Bhikiben Bhikhabhai in 1975, has recently
increased in value. The FIR further alleges that following a public notice titled
“Beware of Land-grabbers” published on June 7, 2008, the heirs of Bhikhabhai and
Bhikiben, along with Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Manubhai Kurjibhai Malaviya,
conspired to seize the land using fraudulent documents, including a fake 'Satakhat'
(agreement) and Power-of-Attorney. The complaint asserts that these actions are part
of an extortion scheme demanding Rs. 2.5 crores from Nitinbhai Patel to resolve the
land disputes.
ii. Following the FIR, the police conducted an investigation that culminated in a charge
sheet being filed on April 22, 2010, with the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Surat.
The Magistrate, upon review, issued summons to the accused on April 23, 2010, for
alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),
including sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security),
468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine),
384 (extortion), and 511 (attempting to commit offenses punishable with
imprisonment). In response, the accused appeared before the Magistrate.
iii. On June 10, 2011, the first accused, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya, submitted an
application (Exhibit 28) requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), as well as a discharge application (Exhibit
29). Similarly, on June 14, 2011, the second through sixth accused also filed
applications for further investigation (Exhibit 31) and for discharge (Exhibit 32).
iv. The Magistrate, in an order dated August 24, 2011, dismissed the applications for
further investigation, explaining that the facts the accused wanted to introduce were
part of their defense evidence to be presented during the trial. Subsequently, on
October 21, 2011, the Magistrate also rejected the applications for discharge,
indicating that the case would proceed to trial with the evidence and charges already
in place.
v. On July 26, 2011, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and other accused filed Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 816 of 2011. In this application, they requested the
registration of an FIR or for the Magistrate to mandate an investigation under Section
156(3) of the CrPC based on the details provided in their applications. This request
was denied by the Magistrate in a decision dated September 9, 2011.
vi. Criminal revision applications, numbered 376 and 346 of 2011, were submitted to the
Sessions Court in Surat, challenging the Magistrate's decisions to dismiss the request
for further investigation and to reject the registration of an FIR. Both applications were
reviewed and decided together by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in Surat in a
unified ruling dated January 10, 2012. In this decision, the Judge examined the facts
presented in the application under Section 173(8) and concluded that there was
sufficient basis to warrant further investigation.
vii. Following a court order, Investigating Officer R.A. Munshi (IO Munshi) took over the
investigation on March 6, 2012. He quickly submitted two investigation reports, the
first on March 9, 2012, and the second on April 10, 2012, addressing the facts from the
Section 173(8) applications. On June 13, 2012, the original accused withdrew their
Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 in the High Court, which had contested
the rejection of their discharge applications. They did so with the option to file a new
discharge application before the Magistrate.
viii. The High Court then considered Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 along
with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012, and concluded that a
Magistrate has no authority to order further investigation after the filing of a charge-
sheet and once cognizance has been taken. The Court criticized IO Munshi for the
manner in which the investigation reports were submitted, suggesting the actions were
biased in favor of the accused, and ultimately dismissed the reports and set aside the
judgment by the Second Additional Sessions Judge from January 10, 2012.
Issues:
The issue emanates from application(s) filed by the accused persons before the judicial
magistrate (First Class), Surat, (Magistrate) for further investigation citing additional facts
that could have incriminated the complainant. The Magistrate dismissed the said
application(s) observing that the facts sought to be placed by the accused were in the nature
of defence to the allegations in the FIR by the original complainant and therefore, the said
facts and evidence(s) may be led during the trial. The accused persons assailed the said order
before the High Court, wherein the High Court held that the Magistrate does not possess any
power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has
been taken by the concerned magistrate. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal
by the accused persons before the Supreme Court (Appeal).
In the Appeal, the following question of law was to be determined by the Supreme Court :
1. 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?
Arguments from the side of Petitioner
Shri Dushyant Dave, a distinguished Senior Advocate representing the Appellants, presented
a strong argument, drawing upon various sections of the CrPC and several pertinent
judgments, to assert that the High Court was incorrect in concluding that a Magistrate lacks
the authority to order further investigation after cognizance has been taken. He detailed the
FIR from December 22, 2009, the charge-sheet from April 22, 2010, and heavily cited a
communication from the Commissioner of Revenue, Gujarat to the Collector of Surat dated
March 15, 2011. He argued that this communication clearly indicated that further
investigation was necessary because his clients were victims of a significant fraud by a land-
grabbing syndicate, and it would be a miscarriage of justice if the judgment by the Second
Additional Sessions Judge from January 10, 2012, was not upheld.
Arguments from the side of Respondent
Conversely, Shri Basant and Shri Navare, distinguished Senior Advocates representing the
respondents, upheld the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court. They argued
that the evidence sought to be introduced without filing a cross-FIR amounted to defense
material that should be presented during the trial, which is not permissible. They stressed that
no application had been filed to quash the proceedings at any stage, and submitting a belated
application over a year after cognizance had been taken, seeking further investigation into
matters unrelated to the FIR, fell outside the Magistrate's authority under Section 173(8) of
the CrPC. They supported their stance with various legal precedents, including recent
judgments of the Court, to assert that after cognizance is taken and especially after summons
are issued to the accused, the Magistrate lacks the inherent power or can't be moved by the
accused for further investigation at that stage of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Case
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental importance of a fair investigation as a
prerequisite for a fair trial, drawing heavily upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
which it considered to be the guiding principle for interpreting all provisions of the CrPC. It
asserted that under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, a Magistrate must ensure a proper
investigation, and Article 21 mandates that all necessary powers, incidental or implied, are
available to the Magistrate to ensure this, including the ordering of further investigation even
after receiving a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, until the trial commences, upon
application or suo moto.
The Court interpreted the provisions of the CrPC to conclude that the term "investigation"
referred to in Section 156(1) would encompass all proceedings for the collection of evidence
conducted by the police, as defined under Section 2(h), which includes proceedings for further
investigation under Section 173(8). Thus, a Magistrate empowered under Section 156 is also
empowered to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on various judgments, including
Kamlapati Trivedi v State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 91, which acknowledged that if a
Magistrate disagrees with the police report, further investigation may be ordered.
Additionally, the Court held that the judgment in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy &
Ors. v V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (Devarapalli Case) did not correctly interpret the law, as it
did not consider Section 2(h) of the CrPC while analyzing Sections 156(3) and 173(8), nor
did it provide sufficient reason to restrict a Magistrate from exercising such powers. The
Court overturned the judgments of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v Sumanbhai Kantibhai
Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, Athul Rao v State of Karnataka & Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 298, Bikash
Ranjan Rout v State through Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi (2019) 5 SCC
542, and Randhir Singh Rana v State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361, to the extent
that they were inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Vinubhai Case.
Students point of view
1. Authority of Magistrates: The Court clarified that magistrates possess the authority to
order further investigation even after a charge-sheet is filed and after taking cognizance of
an offense. This power can be exercised at any point before the trial officially begins,
whether on the magistrate's own accord (suo moto) or based on an application.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution: The judgment emphasized that a fair investigation is
integral to ensuring a fair trial, invoking Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court held that this right underpins the
magistrate’s power to order further investigation to ensure justice.
3. Interpretation of CrPC Sections: The Supreme Court provided a broad interpretation of
Section 156(3) of the CrPC, allowing magistrates to direct the police to conduct further
investigations if needed to gather all relevant facts and evidence. This interpretation aims to
enhance the thoroughness and fairness of investigations.
4. Overruling Previous Judgments: The decision overruled several prior Supreme Court
rulings that had restricted the powers of magistrates to order further investigations post-
cognizance. It criticized these judgments for not adequately considering the provisions of
the CrPC and the overarching mandate of Article 21.
5. Implications for Future Cases: The judgment sets a precedent that reinforces the powers
of magistrates in the criminal justice system, ensuring that they can intervene to order
further investigations to uphold justice and the rights of the accused and the victims.
The Supreme Court's decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat is
significant as it expands the scope of judicial oversight in criminal investigations,
emphasizing the importance of comprehensive and fair investigations in the pursuit of
justice.
