Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 30, 2024 emphasized the vital role of the legal profession in the judicial process, noting that any proceeding or application lacking clear merit should not be brought before the court.

"We are constrained to observe this because of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending their signatures," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.

The bench felt these misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. 

"It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics," the court said.

The bench clarified that it desisted from such a course in the present case, only because the high court allowed the petition and it reversed the high court's order and dismissed the petition for further investigation.

The court said the further investigation could not be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further investigation had not whispered about anything new in her evidence.

"There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation," the bench said.

Citing Devendra Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors, (2023), the court also pointed out it has been emphasised earlier that though power to order further investigation is a significant power it has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice.

"Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate and the said discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in accordance with law," the bench said.

This court also held that in an appropriate case, where the high court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This court reiterated the principle that even under Section 482 CrPC the wide powers are to be exercised fairly with circumspection and in exceptional cases, the bench pointed out.

On an appeal by one K Vadivel, the court held the Madras High Court's order of April 30, 2021 directing for further investigation in a 2013 murder case, long after the final arguments were concluded on October 19, 2019 in the trial court, as "absolutely unwarranted".

The high court gave no valid justification for ordering a further investigation, the bench said.

The court noted that the wife of the deceased filed the application for further investigation in 2020, though the charge sheet was filed in 2013.

The bench also found that it was only when the high court dismissed her petition under Section 311 CrPC stating that she had not made any prayer for further investigation that she filed the present application in January, 2020. 

In the case, the present Special Leave Petition was filed on March 14, 2022. By an order of August 16, 2022, the top court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the impugned order. However, before the filing of the special leave petition, the additional charge-sheet also came to be prepared on December 02, 2021. 

Before the trial court and the high court in the present set of proceedings concerning the application for further investigation, the State had opposed the prayer contending that the investigation of the case had been done properly and charge-sheet had been duly filed arraigning all the allegedly involved individuals. 

"It is only in this court that the State has vehemently defended the order. A counter affidavit was filed by the State in this court in September, 2024 without offering any tenable justification for the need for further investigation. We direct that for all these reasons the additional charges ought not to be taken on the record of the trial court," the bench said.

In its postscript, the bench said while it is true that delay in trial will cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist. 

"This case is a classic example of the latter category," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted the FIR was filed on March 31, 2013 and the charge-sheet on July 11, 2013.

At the fag end of the trial in October 2019, on the eve of the final arguments, the first round of applications under Section 311 of CrPC came to be filed, which culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019. Soon thereafter in January, 2020, virtually the same grounds which had been rejected earlier were rehashed in the form of an application under Section 173(8) CrPC on behalf of the wife of the deceased. 

"The State, which had hitherto opposed all the applications up to the High Court, turned turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no 1 (wife of the deceased) in this court without offering any tenable justification as to how the earlier investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial lacked credibility," the bench said.

The court pointed out the net result had been that all the stakeholders in the process had contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed after the incident, the trial had still not concluded.

"The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence," the bench said.

Case Title: K Vadivel Vs K Shanthi & Ors