K. VADIVEL V. K. SHANTHI & ORS. 2024 (SC) 757
Facts: The appellant/accused challenged the decision of the High Court, which had allowed respondent No. 1’s revision petition against the trial court’s order that had declined to direct further investigation into the murder of her deceased husband. The High Court directed a further investigation after the trial had concluded its final arguments. Prior to seeking further investigation, respondent No. 1 had filed a recall application under Section 311 of the CrPC almost six years after the charge sheet was filed, seeking to summon certain eyewitnesses who, according to her, had direct knowledge of the incident but had not been examined by the Investigating Officer.
Issue: The key issue was whether the High Court erred in directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC without considering that respondent No. 1 had failed to present any new material or evidence to warrant such an order. The application for further investigation was based entirely on the evidence already led by respondent No. 1 during the trial, and no new facts or circumstances were introduced to support the request.
Observation: The Supreme Court observed that courts must be cautious when ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, particularly when the party seeking the investigation has not brought forward any fresh material. The Court noted that an application for further investigation must be based on new evidence or facts that were not previously available. In this case, the Court pointed out that respondent No. 1’s application was based solely on the evidence she had already presented during the trial and did not cite any new facts or material to justify a further investigation. As a result, the Court held that the charge sheet prepared following the further investigation should not be accepted. The Court also observed that the timing of respondent No. 1’s application, filed immediately after the rejection of her recall application, suggested that the request for further investigation was an attempt to prolong the case, as no new grounds were raised to support the application.
