Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If the State, whose duty it was to bring the offenders to justice, took sides with an accused and permitted him to dictate the manner in which the investigation against him was to progress, it would be antithetical to the concept of ‘the rule of law’.”
‘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. Pleadings with outrageous & ex facie unbelievable averments being made; Frivolous & vexatious proceedings be met with due sanctions to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics.’
The Court noted that since the petitioner was not found to be involved in any offence, his plea for quashing the FIR no longer required adjudication.
“The objective for ‘further investigation’ is to find the truth and bring evidence on record for ensuring substantial justice. However, this right does not extend to mere ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ to be started ab initio.”
“If power is given to the Special Court under Section 436(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’) to try offences other than those under the Act, then SFIO’s power to investigate into such offences cannot be restricted.”
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
Kerala High Court: A Bench comprising of K. Abraham Mathew, J. allowed further investigation to the petitioner as the prior investigation was