K. VADIVELversusK. SHANTHI & ORS.

                   [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 746

                                  K. Vadivel
                                      v.
                              K. Shanthi & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 4058 of 2024)
                              30 September 2024
               [B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further
       investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was
       warranted.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further
       investigation – Applications filed by the first respondent
       for directing the State to conduct further investigation or
       re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and
       eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and
       submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed
       by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be
       ordered at the post cognizance stage – However, the High
       Court allowed the application – Correctness:
       Held: Contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to
       be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness
       of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and
       mete out justice to the parties – However, the further investigation
       cannot 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, has not whispered about anything new in
       her evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application –
       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 – 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 – On
       facts, the direction for further investigation absolutely unwarranted –
       Ordering the additional charge sheet to be taken on record at this

* Author
2                                                            [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     stage pursuant to the further investigation will not be in accordance
     with law – All the stakeholders in the process have contributed to
     the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed after the
     incident, the trial has still not concluded – High Court allowed
     the further investigation without giving valid justification for the
     same – 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 stop such attempt
     instantly – Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks
     merit should not be instituted in a court – Pleadings/petitions with
     outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with
     no inhibition whatsoever – These directly impinge on the rule of
     law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential
     delay in the disposal of other cases – Such frivolous and vexatious
     proceedings to be met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary
     costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics – Thus, the
     judgment of the High Court set aside as also application filed by
     the respondent no. 1 before the trial court for further investigation
     u/s. 173(8) – In view thereof, the additional charge sheet would
     not be taken on record. [Paras 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 43-47]

                              Case Law Cited
     Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2019]
     15 SCR 936 : [2019] 17 SCC 1; Pooja Pal v. Union of India &
     Ors. [2016] 11 SCR 560 : [2016] 3 SCC 135; Ram Lal Narang
     v. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 2 SCR 923 : [1979] 2 SCC
     322; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2004]
     3 SCR 762 : [2004] 5 SCC 347; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias
     Deepak & Ors. [2013] 5 SCC 762; Devendra Nath Singh v. State
     of Bihar & Ors. [2023] 1 SCC 48; Himanshu Kumar and Others
     v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [2022] 11 SCR 724 : [2022]
     SCC OnLine SC 884 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
     Further investigation; Re-investigation; Charge-sheet; Inherent
     powers; Delay; Rule of law; Denial of speedy and timely justice;
     Frivolous and vexatious proceedings; Sanctions; Exemplary costs;
     Additional charge sheet.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             3

                      K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4058
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLRC (MD) No. 533 of 2020
                         Appearances for Parties
     Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Purushothaman Reddy, Shivansh Dubey,
     Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellant.
     Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban,
     R. Sudhakaran, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam,
     Alagiri K, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu
     Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, B. Sarathraj, Chandra
     Bhushan Tiwari, Kaustubh Shukla, Sanket Vashistha, Ms. Samridhi
     Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                 Judgment
     K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment and order
     dated 30.04.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
     in Criminal R.C. (MD) No.533 of 2020. By the said judgment, the
     High Court has, by a cryptic order, and long after final arguments
     had been concluded on 19.10.2019 in the trial court, ordered further
     investigation in the matter. The aggrieved accused is before this Court
     with a grievance that the direction was not justified in law particularly
     when already an attempt by the wife of the deceased to summon
     certain witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
     1973 (Cr.P.C.) had been rebuffed by the Trial Court and the High
     Court as early as in December 2019.
3.   The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court
     was, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering further investigation?
4.   The basic facts essential for adjudication of the present controversy
     are as follows:-
4                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


5.   On 31.03.2013, a First Information Report (FIR) being Crime No.
     27 of 2013 was registered on the complaint given by one Padikasu
     (subsequently examined as PW-1) stating that when he along with
     the deceased Kumar were doing their morning walk around 5:00
     AM and were returning back, three persons alighted from a car with
     weapons and hacked to death, the deceased Kumar.
6.   On 11.07.2013, a final report was filed setting up eight accused for
     trial, including the appellant.
7.   On 20.12.2016, PW-1 - Padikasu was examined. He testified that
     among the two persons who alighted from the car to attack Kumar,
     Ganapathy had a sickle in his hand; upon seeing them he began
     to run; that he phoned the family of deceased Kumar and spoke to
     the son of the deceased. PW-1 testified that he had not seen the
     hacking. He further testified that within five to ten minutes, the family
     members of Kumar came to the place and that he went to the Police
     Station at 6:45 AM and gave the complaint.
8.   PW-1-Padikasu was declared hostile and sought to be cross-
     examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination he denied the
     suggestion that he had told the Police that he saw Ganapathy and
     Vadivel (appellant) hacking the deceased and Chinnaraja (the other
     accused) stabbing the deceased with a spear. On a question by the
     Court, he reiterated that he saw Ganapathy among the persons who
     alighted having a sickle and since he was perturbed and began to
     run though he saw others, he was not in a position to identify them.
     His deposition was recorded on 20thof December 2016.
9.   Thereafter, on 18th of March 2017, the first respondent Shanthi -
     wife of the deceased was examined. She corroborated the phone
     call received from PW-1 and also stated that PW-1 told her that
     Ganapathy, Vadivel (appellant) and Karthick were the accused who
     hacked her husband with sickle and that while Chinnaraj and Selvaraj
     stabbed her husband with spear-stick, Madhavan, Murugan and
     Palaniyappan caught hold of her husband. She also testified that when
     after receiving the phone call she went to the place of the incident
     with Sathappa Subramanian and Subramanian, her brothers-in-law
     and that her own brothers also accompanied her. On 18.03.2017
     itself, PW-3, Subbaiah and PW-4, Duraimurugan were examined.
10. On 25.07.2019, PW-1 - Padikasu was recalled at the behest of
    accused A1 and A2 wherein he stated that he did not specifically
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        5

                     K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


     state to the Police about A1 Ganapathy being present in the place of
     occurrence and that he had only stated that three unidentified persons
     had attacked the deceased. He further added that he mentioned
     about A1 Ganapathy only on account of the Police threatening him.
11. On 19.10.2019, on the conclusion of the trial, final arguments were
    heard, and the case was fixed for filing of written arguments.
12. At this stage, on 22.10.2019, Respondent No. 1 (examined as PW-2/
    wife of the deceased) filed Crl. M.P.No.245 of 2019 under Section
    311 of the Cr.P.C. She contended that PW-1 - Padikasu has given
    false evidence; that the Investigating Officer has failed to enquire
    the proper eye-witnesses; that the direct eye-witnesses to the
    occurrence-K. Ganesh S/o Kumar, P. Karmegam S/o Periyakaruppan,
    K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Andiappan
    S/o Chinnaiah have not been examined and that they deserve to
    be summoned. According to the application filed by respondent No.
    1, these witnesses would speak about the cell phone recovered by
    the Police from the occurrence spot and that the cell phone was of
    Nokia Brand holding the sim of Vodafone company which belonged
    to her. She averred that the Police failed to produce the material
    object and that the cell phone and call details ought to have been
    produced by the Police. In view of the above, she prayed that the
    additional witnesses be summoned and examined.
13. The accused opposed the Section 311 petition by pointing out the
    delay of 6 years and 9 months in filing the petition and also about
    respondent No.1 (PW-2) not whispering about any of these facts
    during her examination. They contended that the persons sought to
    be examined were none other than her son, brother, brothers-in-law
    and other close relatives.
14. The State also filed its response opposing the application by averring
    that when the statement of Respondent No. 1 was recorded nothing
    was mentioned by her and that during the investigation also nothing
    of the nature as alleged now was forthcoming; that even while being
    examined as PW-2 the applicant had not mentioned these facts;
    that no phone was seized and no sim card was seized and that
    investigation was properly conducted and final report filed.
15. On 29.11.2019, the Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by
    respondent No. 1. The Court observed that the application was filed
6                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     after the examination of the prosecution witnesses had concluded
     and when the case was posted for questioning the accused under
     Section 313. That respondent No. 1 was already examined as
     PW-2 on 18.03.2017 and that on that day itself, together with her,
     Subbaiah alias Subramanian and Duraimurugan were also examined
     as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. The Court observed that though
     the power under Section 311 is available to the Court to reach a just
     decision, it cannot be exercised unless the facts and circumstances
     of the case make it apparent as otherwise it would result in causing
     serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.
     The Court observed that though the power is available, it has to be
     exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
16. The first respondent, vide Crl. O.P (MD) No. 18701 of 2019, challenged
    the order dated 29.11.2019 dismissing the petition under Section 311
    Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The State vehemently opposed the
    said petition by reiterating its contention in the courts below. The
    High Court, by its order of 16.12.2019, dismissed Crl. O.P. (MD) No.
    18701 of 2019 holding in its operative portion as follows:
          “9. It is seen that P.W.1 is the person who stated to
          have accompanied the deceased victim at the time of
          occurrence. He had been examined by the respondent
          police. He had not stated anything as if the occurrence was
          witnessed either by other persons other than him. He was
          examined in chief before the trial court on 18.03.2017. On
          that date also, he has not spoken about the occurrence
          having been witnessed by any other persons other than
          him. Further, during cross examination, he has also resiled
          from his earlier statement. P.W.2 has been examined in
          chief on 18.03.2017. She has also not spoken about the
          additional witnesses having seen the occurrence or that
          they have been left out by the prosecution to be added as
          witnesses in the final report. Further, after final report has
          been filed on 11.07.2013, if it is true that the eyewitnesses
          have been left out, she would have filed the petition for
          further investigation even at that time, which has also not
          been done. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
          the petition is filed much belatedly only for the purpose
          of delaying the trial.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          7

                      K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


          10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any
          infirmity in the order passed by the trial Judge. Accordingly,
          this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”
17. Taking a cue, as it were, from the observations of the High Court that
    the first respondent would have filed a petition seeking for further
    investigation at that time if eyewitnesses have been left out, the first
    respondent in January, 2020 filed Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No.
    61/2014 before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge
    with a prayer for directing the State to conduct further investigation or
    reinvestigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses
    of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional (or)
    supplementary charge-sheet. In the application, it was averred that
    the Investigating Officer had failed to enquire Kattarimani who had
    accompanied her husband-deceased Kumar and also had failed to
    examine proper eyewitnesses; that PW-1 Padikasu had given false
    statements and evidence and that Padikasu had expressed fear
    and mentioned about the threatening influences of the accused and
    other pressures brought by the accused; that investigation has been
    carried out in a haphazard manner; that there is lack of collection of
    material evidence; that the cell phone used by PW-1 Padikasu and
    the cell phone of deceased Kumar has not been properly secured
    and placed for tracing the call details. That non-examination of R.
    Natarajan, M. Muthu, S. Ramasamy who are the occurrence witnesses
    and eye witnesses K. Ganesan S/o Late Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o
    Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu
    and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah are designed at the behest of the
    inspector of police.
18. It will be noticed from the application that insofar as the eyewitnesses,
    who according to the first respondent were not enquired, the names
    are common as mentioned in her earlier Section 311 application.
    Under the category of occurrence witnesses, she has added three
    names which surfaced for the first time in this application. This aspect
    will be considered later in this judgment.
19. The application was strongly opposed by the accused. The accused,
    in their counter, averred that the application was not maintainable
    without the consent of the public prosecutor and that the misconceived
    application was intended to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution;
    the allegation that any threat to witnesses were denied and it was
8                                                           [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     contended that no such complaint was made in the last seven years
     about any such threats being administered and even on 18.03.2017
     when the respondent no. 1 (PW-2) along with her brothers PW-3
     and PW-4 were examined, no such complaint was made. The
     accused further averred that further investigation cannot be ordered
     at the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of
     victims/complainants and it can only be done at the behest of the
     investigating agency. The accused further averred that after the
     section 311 Cr.P.C. petition, namely, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of
     2019 was dismissed even Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination had been
     concluded and thereafter the accused had concluded oral arguments
     and filed written arguments. So contending, they had prayed for the
     dismissal of the petition for further investigation.
20. The State also opposed the application stating that the case has been
    investigated properly and charge-sheet filed; that the respondent no.
    1 has recorded her statement and her earlier application to examine
    additional witnesses has been dismissed and that the present
    application is only with an intent to drag the proceeding.
21. The trial court dismissed the petition for further investigation by its
    order of 23rd July, 2020. The trial court held that the respondent no.
    1 (PW-2) in her examination on 18.03.2017 in court did not speak
    anything as to about what she is mentioning now in the application.
    That final report was filed as early as on 11.07.2013 and if her
    contention is correct, she would have filed a petition for further
    investigation at that very time. The trial court further held that further
    investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage either
    suo moto or at the instance of victims/complainants or at the instance
    of anyone else except the investigating agency and that the petition
    was only filed to prolong the proceeding.
22. The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the High Court
    to which the accused filed a counter reiterating the contentions. By
    the impugned order, without any discussion whatsoever and holding
    the following in the operative portion, the High Court allowed the
    application:
           “10. It is seen that an opportunity to examine additional
           witness was not given by this Court on the ground that the
           petitioner has not filed a petition for further investigation.
           In the above circumstances, dening (sic.) a relief of further
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                              9

                       K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


           investigation may cause prejudice to the petitioner. It is
           stated that P.W.1 turned hostile. This is a murder case. For
           the above reasons, it is decided that further investigation
           is necessary. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2020
           in S.C.No.61 of 2014 dated 23.07.2020 on the file of the
           learned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai is set aside.
           The investigation agency is hereby directed to take up
           the case for further investigation and to complete the
           investigation, after examining all the witnesses referred by
           the petitioner and to file a additional chargesheet within a
           period of three months.
           11. On receipt of the additional chargesheet, the trial
           Court is directed to frame charges afresh and to proceed
           with the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously
           as possible.”
23. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on 14.03.2022.
    By an order of 16.08.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed
    the operation of the impugned order. It appears that before the filing
    of the Special Leave Petition, the additional charge-sheet also came
    to be prepared on 02.12.2021.
24. We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior advocate, for
    the appellant as well as Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional
    Advocate General, for the State as well as Shri S. Nagamuthu,
    learned senior advocate, for the respondent No. 1 (wife of the
    deceased).
25. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the
    present application filed by respondent no. 1 is a disguised attempt
    to reopen the earlier proceedings under Section 311 which attained
    finality; that after framing of charges, respondent no. 1, who is not
    a complainant, cannot file an application for further investigation
    under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.; that the trial court had no jurisdiction
    to entertain the application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. after
    framing of charges; that no grounds have been made out for further
    investigation and that the High Court ought not to have interfered
    with the order of trial court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
    Learned senior counsel relied on several judgments of this Court to
    support the contentions.
10                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


26. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the
    learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 strongly defended
    the impugned order. They contended that the interest of justice is
    paramount and it will even trump the need to avoid any delay being
    caused in the proceedings; that the investigating agency has carried
    out further investigation in compliance with the impugned order and
    prepared the additional charge-sheet on 02.12.2021 bringing out
    certain new facts and material; that no prejudice is caused to the
    defence as the material will be furnished to the accused persons and
    they will have ample opportunity to put forth their defence. To support
    their stand, learned senior counsel referred to several precedents.
27. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels
    for the parties, perused the records as well as written submissions
    filed by them.
28. The legal position on the aspect of further investigation is fairly well
    settled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pursuant to the
    recommendation of the Law Commission, in its 41st Report, Section
    173(8) has been expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy
    that may have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:
          “173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
          further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
          under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate
          and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge
          of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or
          documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further
          report or reports regarding such evidence in the form
          prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
          shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
          or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
          under sub-section (2).”
29. The question really is, under what circumstances could this power
    be invoked and whether on the facts of this case, is a further
    investigation warranted.
30. There was some debate at the Bar as to whether the Addl. District
    and Sessions Judge before whom the application was filed by the
    respondent no. 1 under Section 173(8) after the conclusion of the
    evidence could have ordered further investigation. The premise of
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         11

                      K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


     the argument was even though in the present case the Addl. District
     and Sessions Judge has not ordered and it was the High Court which
     had ordered it, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 read
     with 401 of Cr.P.C. The contention was that as per the law laid down
     by this Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of
     Gujarat & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 1, further investigation could at best
     have been ordered till the commencement of the trial.
31. In the present case, though the Trial Judge rejected the application,
    the High Court has ordered further investigation. Considering the
    fact that we are inclined to set aside the order of the High Court, on
    merits, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the issue of jurisdiction.
32. Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have
    to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of
    further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete
    out justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors.
    (2016) 3 SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs.
    State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where
    fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not
    previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where
    it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person
    already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty
    of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the
    same and submit a report to the court.
33. However, the further investigation cannot 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, in this case respondent
    no. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is
    now sought to be averred in the application. 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.
    In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004)
    5 SCC 347), this Court held as under:-
          “13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979)
          2 SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further
          investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because
          cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective
          investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may
12                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so
          permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more
          so in this case, that the police should inform the court
          and seek formal permission to make further investigation
          when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over
          the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial
          since an effective trial for real or actual offences found
          during course of proper investigation is as much relevant,
          desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of
          the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position
          in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the
          same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The
          mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding
          the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation
          if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do
          real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make
          it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on
          the merits of the case.”
34. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC
    762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the power of Magistrate
    to direct further investigation had the following to say:
          “41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further
          investigation” is a significant power which has to be
          exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the
          ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable
          investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency
          and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to
          ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under
          the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate
          or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons,
          would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such
          supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the
          primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions
          of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such
          reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”
35. It is essential to note that this Court emphasized 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
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          13

                      K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


     of justice (see Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
     (2023) 1 SCC 48, para 45). 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. 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 Cr.P.C. could be
     exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This
     Court reiterated the principle that even under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
     the wide powers are to be exercised fairly with circumspection and
     in exceptional cases.
36. In Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
    others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 dealing with the prayer for
    transfer of investigation to CBI, this Court had the following to say:
           “47. ….We are conscious of the fact that though a
           satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective
           investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the
           precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-
           investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or
           the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive
           impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant
           circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and
           analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation
           or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice
           to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the
           court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true
           facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed,
           resolved and a competent investigating agency.”
37. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case, we find
    that for the following reasons the direction for further investigation
    is absolutely unwarranted:-
     i.    The application for further investigation was filed in January
           2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet under Section 173
           Cr.P.C. too had been filed as early as on 11.07.2013.
     ii.   On 20th December, 2016, PW-1 Padikasu was examined, he
           was recalled and cross-examined on 25.07.2019.
14                                                             [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


      iii.   Respondent No. 1 (who is the applicant for further investigation)
             herself was examined on 18.03.2017. There is no whisper in
             her deposition about what she now seeks to contend in the
             application for further investigation. There was nothing that had
             prevented her from deposing in the box about any failure of
             the investigating officer, to enquire Kattarimani or any person
             concerned; about R. Natrajan, M. Muthu and S. Ramasamy
             being occurrence witnesses and about K.Ganesan S/o Late
             Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi,
             Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah
             being eye witnesses, and about how such failure has caused
             prejudice.
      iv.    In fact, seeking the examination of these five witnesses
             mentioned hereinabove, first respondent filed application under
             Section 311 Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed by the trial
             court on 29.11.2019 and was confirmed by the High Court.
             The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. itself was filed on
             22.10.2019, that is after a period of about six years after the
             filing of the charge-sheet.
      v.     It is only when the High Court dismissed her petition under
             Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that she had not made any prayer
             for further investigation that she filed the present application in
             January, 2020. At the stage when she filed the application for
             further investigation, the accused had concluded oral arguments
             and had also filed written arguments.
      vi.    The trial court dismissed the application stating that the
             respondent no. 1 when examined as PW-2 did not speak
             anything about what she had mentioned in her application and
             that though the final report was filed as early as on 11.07.2013,
             respondent no. 1 has filed the application for further investigation
             only in January, 2020. Though, the trial court held that no further
             investigation could be ordered at the post cognizance stage,
             we have, as explained above, not proceeded on that reasoning,
             since that is clearly erroneous.
      vii.   The High Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever
             and has not set out any legal principle which is relevant and
             applicable to the facts. All that is said is the Section 311 petition
             of the respondent no. 1 has been denied on the ground that
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         15

                     K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


          she has not filed a petition for further investigation; that denial
          of relief would cause prejudice to respondent no. 1; that PW-1
          has turned hostile and that being a murder case, it is decided
          to order for further investigation. Not one of the legal principles
          adverted to hereinabove has been considered by the Court.
     viii. As pointed out hereinabove, the failure to claim further
           investigation at that stage was not the only basis for the High
           Court to reject the revision against the dismissal of the Section
           311 application. The High Court had given other detailed reasons
           also like PW-1 and PW-2 not whispering about the additional
           witnesses, when they deposed in Court.
38. We are convinced that ordering the additional charge sheet to be
    taken on record at this stage pursuant to the further investigation
    will not be in accordance with law. It will be contrary to the settled
    principles as laid down by this Court. We have also to satisfy ourselves
    examined the additional charge sheet placed before us. Primarily,
    apart from explaining the motive which is already set out in the
    evidence of PW-2, there is a reference to three of these witnesses
    named in this application as having come to rescue of the deceased
    after hearing the noise raised by the deceased. It is now alleged
    that A-5 tried to prevent the said two witnesses from approaching
    Kumar and threatened them with the sickle. It is also alleged that at
    that point these witnesses saw A-1 and A-4 committing overt acts
    on the deceased.
39. As pointed out earlier, when the application under Section 311
    Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.10.2019, the State, in its response and in
    the arguments before the Court vehemently opposed the application.
    Even before the High Court in the Revision filed against the dismissal
    of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Additional Public
    Prosecutor appearing for the State had expressly contended that
    the respondent no. 1 was examined more than five times by the
    investigating officer and even in her deposition in court had not
    adverted to any of these aspects.
40. 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 has been done properly and charge-sheet had been duly
    filed arraigning all the allegedly involved individuals.
16                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


41. 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.
42. A brief postscript. 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 FIR was filed on 31.03.2013
    and the charge-sheet on 11.07.2013. 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 Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which
    culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019.
43. 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) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
    The State, which had hitherto opposed all the applications up to the
    High Court, turned turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no.
    1 in this Court without offering any tenable justification as to how
    the earlier investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial
    lacked credibility.
44. The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the process have
    contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed
    after the incident, the trial has still not concluded. No doubt, the High
    Court allowed the further investigation which we have today reversed.
    The judgment of the High Court also gave no valid justification for
    ordering a further investigation.
45. 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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        17

                         K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.


46. The legal profession has an important role to play in the process.
    Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should
    not be instituted in a 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. 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. If we have desisted from such a course
    in this case, it is only because the High Court allowed the petition
    and it is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the
    petition for further investigation.
47. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we set aside the
    judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in Criminal RC (MD)
    No. 533 of 2020. Consequently Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No.
    61/2014 filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Court of Additional
    District and Sessions Judge for further investigation under Section
    173(8) Cr.P.C. would stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view
    of the dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated
    02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is, accordingly,
    allowed.
48. We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh, the trial
    should be concluded and judgment pronounced within eight weeks
    from today.

     Result of the Case: Appeal allowed



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain