MANU/TR/0001/2019

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA

Crl. Rev. P. 12 of 2015

Decided On: 03.01.2019

Appellants: The State of Tripura Vs. Respondent: Bimal Chakraborty and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S. Talapatra

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J.

1. The State by means of this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has challenged the order dated 16.01.2015 delivered in Special Case No. 01 of 2015 by the Special Judge [the Session Judge], West Tripura, Agartala, but the challenge is restricted to refusal to take cognizance of the police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Bishalgarh P.S. Case No. 135/2014 under Section 409/468/471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The reasons assigned for such refusal are as follows:

"Going through the police report filed, I find that at page 374 of the volume 2 at para 5 it is stated that further investigation is continuing against the arrested and absconding accused persons.

In my considered opinion, this stands on the way of accepting the police report because section 173(2)(i) says that as soon as investigation is completed the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report etc. What follows from the above is that on completion of investigation only, a police report can be filed by the O.C., of the P.S. and not before.

In my opinion, provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not permit filing of police report at the same time saying that the investigation is in progress because completion of investigation is sine qua non to filing of chargesheet.

Sub section 8 of course permits further investigation but is under a different circumstance when subsequent to filing police report, new facts are revealed requiring further investigation. Filing final report and in the same report stating that further investigation is in progress is not permissible. In this regard observation of the Apex Court in MANU/SC/0302/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 2078 may be quoted which runs as follows:

"Further investigation is not ruled out merely on grounds that it may delay trial. Even after Court takes cognizance of offence on earlier report submitted by police. It is open to police to conduct further investigation in a proper manner. On fresh facts coming to light police should seek permission of Court for further investigation."

In the aforesaid scenario the police report submitted in the form as narrated above cannot be accepted and the O.C., Bishalgarh P.S. is required to file the report in the final form as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from today. The report filed is however retained in the Court."

2. Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned PP appearing for the State has submitted that the reasons so assigned by the Special Judge are grossly erroneous and completely unsustainable. Merely because in the police report it has been mentioned that further investigation was continuing by the investigating officer, the said police report was not accepted by giving 'a pedantic interpretation' of Section