Subsequent Overruling Judgment Doesn't Disturb Conclusiveness Of Inter-Parte Order That Attained Finality: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a subsequent overruling judgment cannot disturb the conclusiveness of an inter parte order that has attained finality. 

Justice K. Babu made the above observation in a writ petition filed by the complainant seeking further investigation of her case. Significant to note that her application for further investigation was dismissed by the Magistrate in 2014 and the revision petition against it was also dismissed by the High Court in 2018. At the time, Supreme Court's decision in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. (2017) held field as per which, after Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences, a further investigation can be done only on application of the Investigating Officer.

The complainant-petitioner argued that she has locus standi to apply for further investigation. However, the High Court noted that the decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. which overruled Amrutbhai (supra) was only delivered in 2019. By that time, the High Court order dismissing petitioner's revision had attained finality and its conclusiveness could not be altered by a subsequent judgment.

Court relied on Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2021), and Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (2002) which laid down that mere over-ruling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision on inter-parties which have attained finality. It thus held,

"In view of the settled law that the judgments inter partes which have attained finality cannot be nullified by subsequent decisions even though the issue involved was the same, the petitioner cannot challenge the order rejecting further investigation, which has become final with the dismissal of Crl.R.P.No.828/2014". 

The petitioner in this case who is a lawyer, claimed that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into her house, assaulted her and her children with deadly weapons, and dragged the dead body of her deceased father out of the house showing disrespect to the same.

Although the petitioner alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 ('Punishment for Unlawful Assembly'), 147 ('Punishment for rioting'), 148 ('Rioting, armed with deadly weapon'), 451 ('House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment'), 323 ('Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt'), 324 ('Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means'), 427 ('Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards') and 297 ('Trespassing on burial places, etc') r/w Section 149 ('Unlawful Assembly') of IPC, the Investigating Officer after the investigation, deleted Sections 324, 327 and 297 of IPC, as well as three persons from the array of accused. The first accused person was also a police officer. 

The petitioner claimed that the Investigating Officer deleted some of the penal provision and accused persons under the influence of the first accused. 

The Magistrate however dismissed the application for further investigation moved by the petitioner, finding that that the Police had registered the crime without any delay upon receipt of the First Information Statement (FIS), and that the act of the Investigating Officer deleting some of the accused and certain penal provisions required no interference, since it was done on relevant materials.

The Magistrate further ascertained that since the petitioner is a practicing lawyer, the possibility of purposeful allegations to attract grave offences could not be ruled out, and added that she could alternatively, prove the alleged facts through a protest complaint.

The High Court also upheld the Magistrate's dismissal of the petitioner's application for further investigation. 

The present plea was thus moved by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a direction for further investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and to entrust such further investigation to State Crime Branch (CID) wing of Kerala State Police. 

The petitioner submitted that there were materials to array accused Nos.6 to 8 in the final report. She added that as per circular No.29/2011, since one of the accused persons was a Police personnel, an officer of the rank of the Circle Inspector ought to have conducted the investigation. 

The circular issued by the State Police Chief directs crimes in which Police Personnel are accused to be investigated by an officer of the rank of Circle Inspector, and an officer of the rank of DySP to personally supervise the investigation.

The respondents however asserted that the scope of further investigation in the case had been closed conclusively with the dismissal of the petitioner's revision plea against the Magistrate's dismissal of her application, and that she had not made out any circumstances warranting a further investigation in the matter. It was added that the petitioner had no right to seek a particular agency to investigate the matter, and further that the circular pointed out by the petitioner could not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, it was averred that the petitioner could not simultaneously file a criminal revision petition and a writ petition challenging the same proceedings. 

The Court observed that the investigation in the present case had been conducted by the SHO, Neeleswaram, who is the officer empowered to investigate a cognizable offence, and that the circular relied on by the petitioner could not override the express provisions of the Cr.P.C. that empowers the said officer to to conduct an investigation and submit a report. 

It further noted that the Magistrate had applied sound reasons to reject the request for further investigation, and that the petitioner had failed to place any material to conclude that the investigative procedure was flawed. 

"The need for further investigation in a case would arise only when there is a clear failure or breakdown in the standard investigative process, The petitioner has failed to place any material to conclude that the investigative procedure was flawed," the Court observed. 

Addressing the petitioner's prayer seeking investigation to be conducted by another agency, the Court said that as per the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009), an aggrieved person could only claim the offence he alleges to be investigated properly, but that he has no right to claim any particular agency to investigate the same.

Additionally, it was found that a party who prays for further investigation to proceed against certain accused persons who had been deleted, has the alternative remedy of filing a protest complaint before the jurisdictional Court.

"If she had filed such a complaint and produced materials to proceed against the deleted accused, the same could have been clubbed together with the charge-sheeted case under Section 210 Cr.P.C," the Court said.

Taking note that the incident had taken place 12 years ago, and that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy to redress the grievances raised by filing a protest complaint before the jurisdictional Court, Justice Babu observed,

"As the prayer for further investigation has become final with Ext.P11 order, the petitioner cannot seek a remedy to nullify a decision that attained finality through parallel or collateral proceeding, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 submitted. I find force in that argument, and this parallel proceeding initiated by the petitioner is only to be treated as an abuse of the process of law". 

The plea was thus dismissed. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates O.V. Maniprasad, Jose Antony, and S. Shiv Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader for Vigilance Rajesh A., Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha, Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer, and Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C. Vijay, Thulasi K. Raj, and Shilpa Soman

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

Case Title: Hemalatha S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32166 OF 2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment