The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that further investigation is permissible even after the filing of a chargesheet and commencement of the trial, provided the court or the investigating authorities apply their minds to the necessity of such an inquiry. This observation came in the judgment of Rampal Gautam & Ors. vs. State by Mahadevpura Police Station, Bengaluru & Anr., wherein the top court set aside a Karnataka High Court order directing fresh investigation in a dowry harassment case.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman against her husband, Sanjay Gautam, and his family, alleging dowry harassment and domestic violence. The FIR was lodged on December 26, 2006, at Mahadevpura Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant accused her husband of assaulting her and demanding dowry. However, the allegations against the husband’s family members—father-in-law Rampal Gautam, mother-in-law Rajini Gautam, brother-in-law Sameer Gautam, and sister-in-law Vandana Sharma—were absent in the initial complaint and surfaced only in a later complaint filed at the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Delhi in March 2007.
During the trial against Sanjay Gautam, the complainant’s deposition on April 12, 2012, made no mention of harassment by the in-laws. However, in a later deposition on March 24, 2014, she introduced allegations against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Based on this, she moved an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking further investigation. The trial court rejected the plea, but the Karnataka High Court, in its order dated August 9, 2016, directed a fresh probe.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the appeals filed by the accused in-laws and the husband. The court upheld the legal principle that further investigation is permissible after the filing of a chargesheet and commencement of trial. However, it cautioned that such a move must be justified based on material evidence and not merely to accommodate belated allegations.
The Court referred to its ruling in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 5 SCC 347], emphasizing that the purpose of further investigation is to arrive at the truth and ensure real and substantial justice. At the same time, it distinguished further investigation from re-investigation, stating that while the police have the authority to conduct further inquiries even after the court has taken cognizance, they must exercise discretion judiciously.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order unsustainable, noting that the complainant had already testified in trial but did not implicate the accused in-laws initially. The belated allegations, surfacing years later, did not warrant further investigation at such an advanced stage. The bench observed:
“Before directing further investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to apply mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that such investigation is necessary for a just decision.”
The apex court quashed the High Court’s order, granting liberty to the complainant to explore other legal remedies, such as filing an application under Section 311 CrPC (for recalling witnesses) or Section 319 CrPC (for summoning additional accused).
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Further investigation is legally permissible after a chargesheet is filed and trial has commenced.
2. Courts and investigating officers must apply their minds to the necessity of such an investigation.
3. Re-investigation is distinct from further investigation, and a fresh probe cannot be ordered merely to accommodate delayed allegations.
4. A belated plea for further investigation, when trial proceedings have substantially progressed, may not be entertained.
In a separate but related appeal filed by Sanjay Gautam, the Supreme Court dismissed his challenge, noting that his trial had already commenced and he could raise his grievances before the trial court.
