Delhi High Court Quashes Supplementary Chargesheet Against Petitioner: Holds Reinvestigation Unauthorized and Allegations Unsupported by Evidence

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court quashed the supplementary chargesheet filed against the petitioner in a murder case, citing lack of credible evidence and procedural irregularities. It exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS), stating, “The High Court possesses inherent powers…to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.”

Facts

1. FIR and Initial Investigations:
   • An FIR was registered in 2006 for the murder of the complainant’s father, alleging offenses under Sections 302, 120B, 114, 34 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
   • The initial investigation did not implicate the petitioner, and three chargesheets were filed without naming him.
2. Subsequent Allegations:
   • The petitioner’s name surfaced based on a statement from a co-accused, allegedly motivated by personal rivalry.
   • The initial investigation officer recommended closing the case against the petitioner due to insufficient evidence.
3. Supplementary Chargesheet:
   • Despite earlier findings, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in 2010, naming the petitioner as an accused.
   • Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, and proceedings commenced against the petitioner.
4. Procedural Irregularities:
   • The reinvestigation lacked the mandatory approval of the Sessions Court and was unauthorized, as permission was obtained from a Magistrate.

Issues

1. Evidentiary Basis:
   • Was there credible evidence supporting the petitioner’s involvement in the crime?
2. Legality of Reinvestigation:
   • Did the investigating agency comply with procedural requirements, particularly in obtaining permission for reinvestigation?
3. Validity of Supplementary Chargesheet:
   • Was the supplementary chargesheet legally sustainable, given the lack of new evidence?
4. Abuse of Judicial Process:
   • Did the proceedings against the petitioner amount to an abuse of the process of law?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Unsubstantiated Allegations:
   • The petitioner argued that the supplementary chargesheet was filed based on a co-accused’s statement during custody, which lacks evidentiary value.
2. Procedural Violation:
   • Reinvestigation was unauthorized, as the investigating officer did not obtain approval from the Sessions Court.
3. No Direct Evidence:
   • The petitioner had no connection to the deceased, and the complainant himself did not name or accuse the petitioner during the trial.
4. Earlier Findings Ignored:
   • The initial investigation and three chargesheets conclusively indicated no involvement of the petitioner.
5. Delay in Filing:
   • The supplementary chargesheet was filed four years after the initial FIR, with no new evidence to justify its issuance.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Proper Investigation:
   • The State argued that the supplementary chargesheet was filed following a thorough investigation based on credible information.
2. Dismissal by Uttarakhand High Court:
   • The State highlighted that a similar petition had already been dismissed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
3. No Abuse of Process:
   • It was contended that the chargesheet and subsequent proceedings were lawful and did not constitute abuse of the judicial process.

Analysis of the Law

1. Scope of Section 482 CrPC:
   • The court emphasized that its inherent powers are designed to prevent abuse of process and to secure justice.
   • These powers are to be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary cases, where clear procedural or evidentiary lapses exist.
2. Inadmissibility of Custodial Statements:
   • Statements made by a co-accused in police custody are not sufficient evidence to implicate another individual unless corroborated by independent evidence.
3. Reinvestigation Procedure:
   • As per legal requirements, reinvestigation must be authorized by the Sessions Court, not a Magistrate. The failure to adhere to this rendered the proceedings ultra vires.
4. Principles from Precedent:
   • The court relied on several judgments to outline the conditions under which FIRs and chargesheets can be quashed:
     • R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab: Quashing is warranted if the allegations lack evidence.
     • Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan: Extraordinary powers should only address procedural gaps in exceptional cases.
     • G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.: Criminal proceedings should not replace civil remedies or be used arbitrarily.

Precedent Analysis

The court analyzed precedents that underscored the importance of evidence-based prosecutions:

• V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd.: Reinforced the High Court’s powers to quash proceedings lacking substantive evidence.
• G. Sagar Suri: Highlighted the need for caution before initiating criminal processes.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Evidentiary Gaps:
   • No direct or circumstantial evidence supported the petitioner’s involvement.
   • The complainant explicitly denied naming the petitioner or alleging his involvement.
2. Procedural Irregularities:
   • The reinvestigation was unauthorized, as permissions were improperly obtained from the Magistrate.
3. Misplaced Allegations:
   • The court noted that the alleged political rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased was unsubstantiated.
4. Misuse of Process:
   • The filing of the supplementary chargesheet and subsequent proceedings were deemed an abuse of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The court quashed the supplementary chargesheet and summoning order, stating that the petitioner’s alleged involvement was based on unverified claims and lacked evidentiary backing. It held, “The inherent powers of the High Court exist to prevent abuse of authority and secure the ends of justice.”

Implications

• Judicial Oversight: The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring procedural integrity and preventing misuse of investigative powers.
• Adherence to Evidence: Investigating agencies must ensure that allegations are corroborated by credible evidence before filing chargesheets.
• Reinvestigation Protocol: The ruling highlights the necessity of following prescribed legal procedures during reinvestigation to uphold the rule of law.

Also Read – Delhi High Court: Joint Trial Denied for Eight Cheque Dishonour Complaints Under Section 138 NI Act; Each Dishonoured Cheque Constitutes a Separate Cause of Action Requiring Procedural Adherence to Cr.P.C