The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that an accused does not possess an absolute right to demand further investigation. However, courts have the authority to intervene when the investigation appears incomplete, biased, or tainted by foul play. The ruling came in response to a petition challenging a lower court’s dismissal of a request for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Background of the Case

The case, George Cyriac v. State of Kerala, revolved around allegations that the petitioner, George Cyriac, had forged two powers of attorney and a solvency certificate to participate in an auction for an arrack shop license in 1993-94. The case was registered in 2015, more than two decades after the alleged offense, and the final report was submitted in 2018.

Read Also:- Drug Mafia's Reach Extends to School Kids: Kerala HC Upholds Bail Cancellation of NDPS Accused

The petitioner contended that the case was initiated after a significant delay to obstruct revenue recovery proceedings against the property. He argued that a fair investigation is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and sought further investigation.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice A. Badharudeen, while considering the case, relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) and held that while an accused cannot dictate the course of an investigation, courts can intervene if the probe appears unfair or influenced by external factors.

"When the investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide, incomplete, shabby, and meddled with smacks of foul play, the courts have the power to intervene. The constitutional courts can set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation to ensure fairness in the trial." – Kerala High Court

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Takes Action to Prevent Child Marriages in Wayanad's Tribal Communities

The Court clarified that all courts, including trial courts, have the authority to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC before the commencement of the trial.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner claimed that:

• He merely acted as a power of attorney holder and had no role in forging documents.
• The alleged forgery should have been attributed to another individual.
• The case was filed after an unreasonable delay of 22 years, raising suspicions about its motives.
• A fresh investigation was necessary to determine who actually produced the forged documents.

Counterarguments by the Respondents

The defacto complainant opposed the request for further investigation, stating that:

• The accused actively participated in the auction process using forged documents.
• The alleged forgery was committed in collaboration with another individual.
• The case should proceed to trial instead of delaying it through further investigations.

The Public Prosecutor also objected to the petitioner’s request, emphasizing that the investigation had been conducted as per legal norms.

Read Also:- Police Can Take Action Against Women Filing False Sexual Assault Cases: Kerala High Court

After carefully evaluating the arguments, the Court acknowledged that a crucial aspect of the case—who produced the forged documents—had not been adequately investigated. The Court, therefore, set aside the lower court's order and allowed further investigation.

"The trial court erred in dismissing the request for further investigation, as the issue of who produced the forged documents remains unclear. A thorough investigation is necessary to establish the truth and ensure a fair trial." – Kerala High Court

The Court directed the investigating officer to complete the further investigation within four months. Until the supplementary report is filed, the trial proceedings would remain stayed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates V Vinay, M S Aneer, Sarath K P, Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C R, K S Kiran Krishnan

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Mithun Baby John, N.U.Harikrishna, Priya P K, Public Prosecutor Jibu T S

Case Title: George Cyriac v State of Kerala

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 7443 OF 2023