Pawan Kharbanda v. State Of Punjab And Another



 
      
  





!

"

#$% & & 

 #$#'$( "

#$% & & 

)*)$ +,) -)$") &&&  ././#$

0& 1.).

#2 '$3)- )$"

)$#.,

&&&  4#$"

$.

%  56 & 1
 

 
 

   

    

   

 



 7 &
   

!"

# #$

  %&'

(  )#
# *+ , -

 .

/001  ""

23 24 "2"



 '"' '

5


# !42 (  )5
#*+ ( '2& '!"  !  % 5
# 6  

 +  % 23 24 "2"

 '"' '"  '"4 324 3'

5
# 

  

$  



-  

 $

6

 " 2! "2"

(:

.%+ 

 < 

#

   6;



 

  ,  . "

= 

 23 24 "2" 6     $  ..

6 6         > 
  





 $

  lalkara        8  ? >  

=

 

$ 6 



, $



;

    $ ? > 

6

   $


@ $ ,6

  $



   > > 



  

 

6 6   > > 

 6 6

$ ? > 

A

$    $

 

 

$    6  8  ? >   > > 



6 

$ 0# B

   $ A 

  (supra+  '

@    



  (supra+  

.  (supra+

 6 ;



    

"2."3  

 $

 $ ,

kirpans  



 6    



 

  6  $ -  ;  



'"4 '"  '"' 324 '

5
# 6   

 ; 



&'

Cnow Section 193 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS+D (:

."+   4 2% "24 B6 



          9   

  inter alia,    "

  

;

$



 

   ;  "2"2 



 ;    "

     #1..343%."2"'

,  

   



  "3 2& "2"

(:

.4+

    6   "

    '"'

5
# (now Section 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023+ .E  

  "% 2 "2"

    #$$
  (+ 

(:

.&+     9  6   .

 

 

6

8  "

;    

  6    23 24 "2"

 

$   " 2! "2"

(:

.%+ 6

     $ 6

 . 1     

 

$  B* $ Ramachandran Vs. R.

Udhayakuamr and others, (2008) 5 SCC 41, Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and another, (2009) 7 SCC 685 Bhagwant Singh Vs.

Commissioner of Police,  Contempt Petition No.4998 of 1983   "3 2 %!3  Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab  CRM3 M3503632019   2 2% "2"2 9    



   

;



  

&   

  

 

    

      >  

 $

 

  

 

 2% 2 "2"



$ :     

  

;

8   " 2! "2"

(:

.%+

 

 .  



- 

;

&'(!+ (6 Section 193(9) of BNSS+ 6 



6

"Section 173 Cr.P.C.3 Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

:::

:::

:::

(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& sectgions (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).

Section 193, BNSS3 Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

xxx xxx xxx

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub& section (3) 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 as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub&sections (3) to (8) 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 (3): Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be

9 completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.

!

5 

 )  *

).

*

 

 

; 

   



  &'(!+ (6 Section 193(9) of BNSS+ 

 

 6 6 

$   6 <  = B* $ Ramchandran* (supra+  ,   0 <   
  

6   F6. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub&section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub&section (8), but not fresh investigation or re&investigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Ors., 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 719 : (1998(5) SCC 223). It was, inter alia, observed as follows :

"24. The dictionary meaning of "further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional; more; supplemental"."Further" investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn

: inspiration from the fact that sub&section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports & and not fresh report or reports & regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation."

%  6      

    $$ ,     .

(+

 

  ("+   

 G

('+   

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+ B6  $

 

 6  

6 $ 

 -  $  6 <  = B* $ Kishan Lal* (supra+  ,   <   =   

6  "An order of further investigation can be made at various stages including the stage of the trial, that is, after taking cognizance of the offence.

Although some decisions have been referred to us, we need not dilate thereupon as the matter has recently been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [2009(7) SCALE 559] in the following terms :

"16. This Court while passing the order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of Constitution of India did not

; direct re&investigation. This court exercised its jurisdiction which was within the realm of the Code. Indisputably the investigating agency in terms of sub&section (8) of Section 173 of the Code can pray before the Court and may be granted permission to investigate into the matter further. There are, however, certain situations, where such a formal request may not be insisted upon."

"17. It is, however, beyond any cavil that 'further investigation' and 're&investigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely under Articles and of the Constitution of India could direct a 'State' to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a re3investigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction." Pasayat, J. In Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 47 : 2008(3) RAJ 547 : [(2008)5 SCC 413], opined as under :& "7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub&section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub& seection (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation..." (emphasis added)  

$   " 2! "2"

(:

.%+

 6



 6  ). * -

 6



;

 6



 



$   

      

  

$ 

$



 ;   $ # ; &'(!+ (6 Section 193(9) of BNSS+

6   6 $  

      B6

de novo    



, $

  $ 

B* $   ;



$







 "

# 5

5    

6

  







   $

 



 E  

;

  6     



  6

 

 "

# 5

 # = B* $ Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, 1978(1) SCC 248   

 "

# 5



$

  ;

E   

;

:

   

6

  6   

 ;





  ; 6 $    5 

;

  6   

 - , 

 6



 "

# 5

1   

 

$  B* $ P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002(4) SCC 578 Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (2) RCR (Criminal) 634, Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 775.   = B* $ Abdul Rehman Antulay* (supra+   $   

 



    ,   <  =
< 1; 

6  "49.... In other words, such law should provide a procedure which is fair, reasonable and just. Then alone would it be in consonance with the command of Article 21. Indeed, wherever necessary, such fairness must be read into such law. Now, can it be said that a law which does not provide for a reasonably prompt investigation, trial and conclusion of a criminal case is fair, just and reasonable? It is both in the interest of the accused as well as the society that a criminal case is concluded soon. If the accused is guilty, he ought to be declared so. Societal interest lies in punishing the guilty and exoneration of the innocent but this determination (of guilt or innocence) must be arrived at with reasonable despatch & reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Since it is the accused who is charged with the offence and is

 also the person whose life and/or liberty is at peril, it is but fair to say that he has a right to be tried speedily. Correspondingly, it is the obligation of the State to respect and ensure this right. It needs no emphasis to say, the very fact of being accused of a crime is cause for concern. It affects the reputation and the standing of the person among his colleagues and in the society. It is a cause for worry and expense. It is more so, if he is arrested. If it is a serious offence, the man may stand to lose his life, liberty, career and all that he cherishes."

"

 

    (supra+

  23 24 "2"

'"'

5
# (now Section 115(2) of BNS+ 6 .E 

 

    6

 "

;      .   

  

8 

  

E

 



'

5 6 

 $    

6

 ""

23 24 "2"



 '"' '

5
#  % 23 24 "2"

'"' '"  '"4 324 3'

5
# 

  

$  

-  

 $

6

 " 2! "2"

(:

.%+ 

 < 

#

  

;

-

 -





 $



  (+ 

; 



 =    ;

$       6

  

  

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+

6



 



 $

&'

(now Section 193 of BNSS+ 

6 

 



  E    ;

   

 $    

  





&'

(now Sections 175 & 193 of BNSS+

6



 $ $ 



 6  $

 ;

 < 

   $   

6  

$   

 ;

 8 

$;



  $ 

  

6  &

'/"

</$

2# (#$/"

/$=
)$( <<)./#$  4# .

'$"

(./#$ : #2
&&
&

now Section 193 of BNSS

%

+



;

  



 $6   .   .

   $





  

 # 

1    





 

(now BNSS+ 5

  6



  5  @ 

  

    $$ 

6   (+  

  (+ 0   , E  

  (+ 0   

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+ (+

         $

 # 

1 @ 

ipse dixit $

 

 $

  /

 ;



 $ 5    $

 6 6

$   

  

    # 

1 5 

 

 

6  6

  ,  6

. $  $

 

 



 E   

;



$

   

 $

$ 6  

      , 5  @ 6

  (+

A  $   ;

 

8         



 $   (+ $  

  , 

;

(+  ,;

 

   $ 6 6

 

  -  

 (+ 8 5  @

  

    

 (8 

 

 $ 

 :

+        

 &

'/"

</$

*/.,

(.

.# )44</()./#$ '$"

(./#$ 9

#2
&&
& now Section 175(3) of BNSS % ( +

A :

;

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+   

$  

 



 $



  (+

  

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+ $

 



$ 

 

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+ :    

$  6 $

  $

  $

 6

 -

A

:

 :

 -   

  ;

(+

     B* $ Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.7 (2015) 6 SCC 287

-   $ &3('+ =  ;

 ,  ,

  "2"'

(=+

  

34('+  &3('+ = 

6

  

  

$

   :

 $

 3 (+

3 ('+ (now Sections 173(1) and 173(4) of BNSS+  ,  $ 5  

      $



  6   

   

.-   

 

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+

 

 $

  

    



  

$   ,

    

E $ 

 $   $

 (+



 :



  $ $  

:

$ 6

     5  



$    6  $

    

9

-

  $  , 

;

    $ ; $

 

 

 

 

  ;





 $   



.$ , 5 $

   6 

  

  

 

 

    

     

34('+ (now Section 175(3) of BNSS+ B6       -  

E  ,

  ; ;

     

   :



 

 6     ;

    6  ( Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2020   16.01.2025+ $ &3('+ =  





     

751 -     - ;

$  ;

 $     6  

- ;

  :





 , $ 5  ;

8  



  





: 6

.  

 ;

  ;

6

:   

          $  &   

;

6

H 8;

#  

 



$    ;



;



;

!

1;

 

;

 

$

 0 I  <    ;

6

H 8; #   6  





$

  

;

  

  0 #   < 

 $; #    $  ;

 

 > 

  ?

"% 2 "2"3  vishnu A  ,/   J/ A  

J/