SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 744

2010 (6) Supreme 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Virender Prasad Singh — Appellant
versus
Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 4979 of 2010)
Decided on : 16-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
Re-investigation is forbidden by law.
Application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. having no bona fides should not be entertained.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173(8) – High Court directing investigation by an officer of the rank of DGP – Asking the parties to suggest names – Nominating one officer of DGP rank – Not permissible, more so after filing of the charge-sheet. (Paras 10 and 15)

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 173, 438 and 482 – Accused moving the High Court u/ss 173(8) and 482 after cognizance was taken and charge-sheet was submitted and trial was pending – Not permissible. (Para 16)

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – A Section 482 application on the plea that the investigation is not proper at the instance of the accused who does not choose to even appear before the Sessions Judge before whom the matter is pending, should not have been entertained as having no bona fides whatsoever. (Paras 18 and 23)

        (2009) 6 SCC 332; (2008) 5 SCC 413 – Relied upon

        (2010) 2 SCC 200 – Distinguished

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Accused not outing up any justification for re-investigation – High Court without examining requirement or need for re-investigation requiring opinion of the DGP rank officer to decide whether earlier investigation was doe properly or not – It was the task of the Court and not the DGP rank officer. (Para 22)

       Facts of the case:

        1. In a Criminal appeal the accused prayed for iunvestigation by an independent agency.

        2. High Court directed the re-examination of the completed investigation by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police (DGP).

        3. An extremely unusual course has been taken, whereby the counsel for the respondent No. 1/accused, who had filed the petition under Section 482 before the High Court, was asked to give a proposal of three names of the police officers of the DGP rank for examining the records of the completed investigation, wherein even the charge sheet was already filed. Similar choice seems to have been given even to the counsel for the appellant/informant to suggest some names. The appellant/informant (respondent before the High Court) did not choose to give any name, with the result that the High Court went on to select one Mr. Manoj Nath, an IPS of 1973 Batch for assistance in the matter.

       Finding of the Court:

        Action of the High Court was neither permissible nor warranted.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. An extremely unusual order passed by the High Court has fallen for consideration in this appeal which has been filed on behalf of the appellant/complainant Virender Prasad Singh. The said order was passed on the basis of a petition filed by the respondent No. 1/accused Rajesh Bhardwaj who is facing the charges of very serious offences like provided under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short). By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the High Court has issued certain directions, whereby he has directed the re-examination of the completed investigation by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police (DGP). An extremely unusual course has been taken, whereby the counsel for the respondent No. 1/accused, who had filed the petition under Section 482 before the High Court, was asked to give a proposal of three names of the police officers of the DGP rank for examining the records of the completed investigation, wherein even the charge sheet was already filed. Similar choice seems to have been given even to the counsel for the appellant/informant to suggest some names. The appellant/informant (respondent before the High Court) did not choose to give any name, with the result that the High Court went on to select one Mr. Manoj Nath, an IPS of 1973 Batch for assistance in the matter. The High Court observed:-

“This Court requests Mr. Manoj Nath to examine all the records of the case in detail and submit his report to this Court preferably within a period of one month with his clear opinion as to (i) whether investigation of the case is complete from all angles and case is fit to be tried on the basis of materials and report placed on record by the Investigating Officer only or (ii) whether there are some loopholes and lacunae in the investigation which necessitates further or fresh investigation of the case and if necessary by a more experienced and specialized agency, and/or (iii) what further steps, if any, are required to be taken in the case in the ends of justice, so that the guilty may not escape and the innocent may not suffer due to laches on the part of officers of the State. For consideration of Mr. Nath, parties are directed to make available the documents and materials which they have placed on record in the form of a properly indexed paper book within two weeks. This Court expects from Mr. Nath that he will not get swayed away by any opinion of any officer or agency which may be available on record and shall completely ignore the pleadings of the parties. He will examine the documents and evidence of the witnesses available on record and form his independent opinion in the matter. If necessary, under the authority of this Court, he may requisition any other documents and material connected with the case, in original or in the form of its carbon copy, from any other source or authority and upon his requisition, the same shall be made available to him by all concerned, default of which shall be treated as contempt of this Court.”

In the last paragraph of its order, the High Court held:-

“Till 21st June, 2010, the Court concerned shall not take any further steps in the proceeding arising out of Arrah Rail GRP Case No. 73 of 2007.”

The concerned criminal case was initiated by a First Information Report registered on 6.12.2007. It is an admitted position that the investigation had been completed and the police was going to submit the charge sheet dated 18.6.2009, but before that, the mother of the respondent No. 1/accused filed Crl. WJC No. 394 of 2009 before the High Court. In this petition, the prayer was for re-investigation of the matter by another agency. Eventually, the mother of the respondent No. 1/accused died and the respondent No. 1/accused was substituted for her, and it is only on that basis that the order has been passed.

3. The First Information Report refers to the incident which took place on






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top