Sureshkumar Taraji Mali V/s. State of Gujarat
Para 4: I take notice of the fact that the Investigating Officer filed a report in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa for the addition of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the injured sustained a fracture in her hand.
Para 5: It appears that the learned J.M.F.C., Deesa accepted the report and passed an order “kept with the FIR”. The law in this regard is well settled. In the case of Bhanubhai Mafabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Criminal Application No. 3628 of 2013 decided on 30th November 2013], this Court has explained that it is not sufficient for the Magistrate to only say “to be kept with the F.I.R.” The Magistrate is obliged to assign reasons in a brief while accepting such report which the Investigating Officer files for the addition of a particular offense in the F.I.R.
Para 6: In such circumstances, the matter is remitted to the learned J.M.F.C., Deesa with a direction that he shall assign reasons for adding Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR. The learned Magistrate shall peruse the necessary papers of the investigation and then, pass appropriate orders on the report.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors.
The State of Gujarat and Anr.
Despite the aforesaid judgments, some discordant notes were sounded in three recent judgments. In Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, on the facts, in that case, the Appellant/Informant therein sought a direction under Section 173(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police long after charges were framed against the Respondents at the culminating stages of the trial. The Court in its ultimate conclusion was correct, in that, once the trial begins with the framing of charges, the stage of investigation or inquiry into the offense is over, as a result of which no further investigation into the offense should be ordered. But instead of resting its judgment on this simple fact, this Court from paragraphs 29 to 34 resuscitated some of the earlier judgments of this Court, in which a view was taken that no further investigation could be ordered by the Magistrate in cases where, after cognizance is taken, the accused had appeared in pursuance of the process being issued. In particular, Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra) was strongly relied upon by the Court. We have already seen how this judgment was rendered without adverting to the definition of “investigation” in Section 2(h) of the CrPC, and cannot, therefore, be relied upon as laying down the law on this aspect correctly.