The Madras high court has held that a trial court could permit further investigation months after taking cognizance of a case and that too at the instance of the accused.
The police had filed a chargesheet against Ravi Kapoor under various sections of IPC following a complaint by V. Sivakumar alleging that the former had cheated him over the purchase of a second-hand offset printing machine from England.
Kapoor had denied the allegations and stated that the complainant was not able to pay the supplier and the machine had been lying idle in a port at Singapore.
He also said that he had paid the supplier and the machine was shipped to Tuticorin. He had also paid the custom duty and alleged that the receipt of payment produced by the complainant was forged.
Kapoor said that he thus approached the trial court, which ordered further investigation. Senior counsel for Sivakumar, R. Shanmughasundaram, contended that once the investigation culminated in the filing of the chargesheet, further investigation could be directed only at the instance of the investigating agency.
It could not be done by the magistrate acting suo motu nor at the instance of the defacto complainant and much less at the instance of the accused.
Ravi Kapoor’s counsel, Abudu Kumar, cited judgments of the Supreme Court and high court and contended that directions for further investigation at the instance of the accused was not altogether foreign.
A fair investigation was the basic norm and when a court was satisfied that such basic requirement had not been met, it would be open to direct further investigation.
Justice C.T. Selvam dismissed a petition from Sivakumar, challenging the November 13, 2008, order of the chief metropolitan magistrate, Chennai, permitting further investigation at the instance of the accused.
The judge accepted the submission of Kumar and said, “The conduct of further investigation in the case would sub-serve the ends of justice,” and dismissed the petition.