Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat

Share & spread the love

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat (2019) significantly clarified the powers of a Magistrate concerning further investigation in criminal proceedings. It affirmed that the Magistrate retains the authority to order further investigation even after taking cognizance of a case, up until the commencement of the trial, thus ensuring that justice is served by allowing a thorough and complete investigation.

Facts of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat

Background

On December 22, 2009, Nitinbhai Patel, acting as the Power of Attorney holder, filed a First Information Report (FIR) on behalf of Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai, who resided in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively. The dispute centred around agricultural land situated in Surat, which Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai had acquired from Bhikabhai and his wife Bhikiben in 1975.

The FIR alleged that due to a substantial increase in land prices in Surat, Vinubhai and Manubhai, the heirs of Bhikabhai and Bhikiben, conspired against the actual owners of the property, accusing them of being land grabbers.

Allegations

The FIR claimed that Vinubhai and Manubhai not only demanded Rs. 2.5 crores to resolve the disputes but also used forged ‘Satakhat’ and Power of Attorney documents to unlawfully seize the disputed land from its legitimate owners.

Procedural Background of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat

  1. Investigation and Charge Sheet: Following an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted and the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) took cognizance on April 23, 2010.
  2. Applications by Vinubhai: On June 10, 2011, Vinubhai filed applications for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and for discharge, both of which were dismissed by the Magistrate. Vinubhai and the other accused also filed an application to register an FIR against the other parties or for the Magistrate to order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was also rejected by the Magistrate.
  3. Sessions Court Involvement: Separate criminal revision applications were submitted to the Sessions Court. The court held that a case for further investigation was made out, although a separate complaint was unnecessary. In compliance with the Sessions Judge’s orders, Investigating Officer (IO) R.A. Munshi submitted two further investigation reports.
  4. High Court Proceedings: The accused approached the High Court regarding the disposal of the discharge applications. The High Court ruled that the Magistrate did not possess the power to order further investigation after taking cognizance, thereby setting aside the judgement of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge.
  5. Supreme Court Special Criminal Application: Finally, this Special Criminal Application was filed before the Supreme Court against the order rejecting the application under Section 156(3).

Issues Raised in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat

The issues raised in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat:

  1. Whether the definition of ‘investigation’ under Section 2(h) CrPC includes further investigation?
  2. Whether further investigation should have been ordered in this case?
  3. Whether a Magistrate can order further investigation after a police report has been forwarded to him under Section 173 and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding?
  4. Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct further investigation?
  5. Whether the judgement in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy (1976) is reliable?

Arguments of the Parties in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat were represented by learned Senior Advocate Shri Dushyant Dave. He contended that the High Court had erred in holding that post-cognizance, a Magistrate would have no power to order further investigation in a cognizable offence. He argued that a huge fraud had been perpetrated on his clients by the land-grabbing mafias (respondents) and if the High Court’s order was not set aside, it would amount to a gross failure of justice.

The counsel for the appellants in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat relied on the FIR dated December 22, 2009, the contents of the charge sheet and the communication from the Commissioner of Revenue, Gujarat to the Collector, Surat dated March 15, 2011. He argued that the High Court’s order was heavily influenced by the rapid submission of further investigation reports and their non-submission to the Magistrate, which led the court to discard valuable evidence. Therefore, it was urged that the order for further investigation be upheld.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat were represented by learned Senior Advocates Shri Basant and Shri Navare, who supported the judgements of the Trial Court and the High Court. They argued against the introduction of evidence that could amount to a defence without filing a cross-FIR, emphasising that such actions would be prohibited during the trial.

The respondents highlighted that at no stage had an application been moved to quash the proceedings. They contended that it would exceed the Magistrate’s power under Section 173(8) CrPC to handle a belated application (by the appellants) made more than a year after cognizance had been taken, to introduce new facts through further investigation.

To support their main contentions, the respondents in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya versus State of Gujarat cited various landmark and recent judgements. They asserted that once an accused appears in court pursuant to the summons issued, the Magistrate lacks the authority to initiate further investigation either on their own accord or at the request of the accused.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat Judgement

The Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat, after a comprehensive examination of numerous judgements, concluded that a Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation on a police report even at a post-cognizance stage, up until the commencement of the trial. The Court noted that the Magistrate is entrusted with all incidental or implied powers necessary to ensure a proper investigation.

The Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat acknowledged that the Magistrate possesses very wide powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, which can be exercised suo moto. It is at the discretion of the Magistrate to decide whether to order further investigation or not.

The Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat observed that the definition of ‘investigation’ under Section 2(h) CrPC is inclusive, encompassing all proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer, including further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The Bench partially set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court insofar as it stated that the Magistrate has no power to order further investigation at a post-cognizance stage. In light of the new facts presented, the Court directed the police to register an FIR on behalf of the appellants. Consequently, the application in this case was partially allowed and the trial in the FIR dated April 24, 2009, was stayed by the Court.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat Summary

In the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat (2019), the Supreme Court examined whether a Magistrate can order further investigation post-cognizance. The case involved allegations of land grabbing and fraud related to agricultural land in Surat. The High Court ruled that the Magistrate lacked such power after taking cognizance, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision.

The Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat held that a Magistrate has the authority to order further investigation up until the trial commences, ensuring comprehensive evidence collection. The judgement emphasised the Magistrate’s wide-ranging powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, allowing for suo moto action if necessary, thereby supporting a thorough investigation to achieve justice.


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad