In Brief
The appellant was charge-sheeted for fraud and forgery offences. The victim's husband filed a separate private complaint seeking charges for additional offences including abetment of suicide. The High Court had quashed that complaint but granted liberty to pursue the matter before the Trial Court. When he did so, the Trial Court rejected the request for further investigation, noting that the investigation had been thorough (76 witnesses examined) and charges already framed. The High Court reversed this, directing further investigation based solely on the liberty previously granted. The Supreme Court held that once cognizance is taken and charges framed, the Trial Court cannot direct further investigation at the instance of a non-complainant party. Further investigation can only be ordered by the investigating agency itself on detecting material evidence. The High Court's interference was improper, and the Trial Court's reasoned order was restored."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.