1
1. Devendra Nath Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 12 October,
2022
(criminal appeal no.1768 0f 2022)
The Supreme Court held that superior courts have the power under Section 482 CrPC
or Article 226 to order further investigations, fresh investigation , or de novo
investigation and can even transfer investigations to another agency when justice
demands, though such powers must be used sparingly.
The accused has no right to interfere or participate in the investigation or pre-
process stages, except where specifically permitted under the Code. They gain the
right to be heard only during revision proceedings under Section 401(2). The principle
of audi alteram partem may be excluded when its application would hinder justice or
serve no fair purpose.
The SC held that we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal
jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
or even article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh”
or “de novo” and even “reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation” are
synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts
are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another,
provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled
principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and
with great circumspection.
the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of
investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the
accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of
a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final
report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a
police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be.
Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding
that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case
the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the
accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate.
Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the
complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the
persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such
revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the
Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the
complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh
consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime
have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any
hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by
the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The
2
judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.” (emphasis supplied) 17.2.
The layout and backdrop of, as also the questions involved in, the case of
there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem rule to cases where nothing
unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present and meet a case. This
rule cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice or to make the law “lifeless, absurd,
stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation”
and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive
necessity so demands.
2. Vakil prashad singh vs state of Bihar
{2009INSC62(Jan,23,2009)}
In this case Patna high court fix a for time limit for complete
investigation
Right to speedy trial flowing from article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the
stage of investigation , inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial
When the court feels that quashing of proceeding cannot be interest of the justice, it
is open to the court to make appropriate order, including fixing the period for
completion of trial.
This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes
within its sweep the pre-ceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy
trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particu-
lar category of cases.
3. Pankaj kumar vs state of Maharashtra and other -(criminal appeal
no1067of 2008, 11julu 2008)
it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe
an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the criminal
courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Sections 309, 311
and 258 CrPC to effectuate the right to speedy trial. In appropriate cases,
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions