The charge sheet should contain only the particulars mentioned in Section 173(2)(i) Cr. P. C. and showing a person as a suspect after the conclusion of the investigation is not permissible.

1. Heard the learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP for the respondent State, and respondent No.1 who is appearing in person. The Division Bench of this Court has pronounced its judgment and order on 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2009, which was reserved for judgment & order on 8th December, 2010. There was difference of opinion between the two learned Single Judges, which comprised the Division Bench namely Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar and Mr. Justice A. P. Bhangale. In view of the difference of opinion, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to refer the matter to a third Judge and therefore, accordingly, this matter was assigned to this Court.

The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under -

2. The petitioner was working in the police Department and he retired in the year 2003. A complaint was filed in respect of an incident which had taken place regarding appointment of the officers by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Investigating Officer. FIR was filed. In the FIR it was averred that name of the petitioner was not mentioned as an accused. In all ten charge-sheets have been filed. In the first five charge-sheets, name of the petitioner was not shown as a suspect, and thereafter in the sixth charge-sheet his name has been shown as a suspect. Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr. P. C. was going on. According to respondent No.1, the said investigation has not been completed. The learned APP, however, after taking instructions submits that investigation is over. He also submits that respondent No.1 is no longer an Investigating Officer of the said crime. Respondent No.1 filed an application for an intervention in this case, on the ground that since allegations of mala fide intention were leveled against him by the petitioner and the State, he decided to intervene in this case. The learned senior counsel Mr. Jethmalani, after taking instructions from his client who is present in the Court, submits that the petitioner does not wish to make any allegations of mala fide against respondent No.1 in this petition and if any such allegations are made in this petition, the same shall stand withdrawn. The statement is accepted.

3. The petitioner initially had filed petition being Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2005 for quashing the investigation. The said petition, however, was disposed by judgment & order dated 31st March, 2008 by the Division Bench, wherein it is observed that since the Petitioner was shown as suspect in the Form of the charge-sheet, filed by the State and since he is not shown as an accused, the petition had become infructuous. Thereafter the petitioner had filed present writ petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for deleting the word ‘suspect’ in the charge-sheet in Column No. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment delivered by both the learned Single Judges. He submitted that the learned Singe Judge - Mr. Justice A. P. Bhangale had misconstrued the ratio of the judgment in the case of – Smt. Rajani Vishram Patil vs. C. B. I. & Anr. [2009 All. MR (Cri.) 3262] and K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 655]. He submitted that in the case of K. Veeraswami (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that the State Government would incorporate only those details which are mentioned in Section 173(2) Cr. P. C. and it was not open for the State Government to incorporate any other details other than the one which is prescribed under the said Section. He submitted that the learned Single Judge (Justice A. P. Bhangale) had not taken into consideration that fundamental right of the accused under Art. 21 of the Constitution was violated by showing him as a suspect, though at any point of time, he can be arrested by the police or can be shown as an accused at any time. It is, therefore, sub