ORDER

These batch of writ petitions have been listed together finding that they relate to the same subject matter and the reliefs prayed in the writ petitions are of similar nature. This Court has been noticing recently that a large number of writ petitions are coming to this Court directly seeking a direction to the investigating agency to conduct a proper, fair and impartial investigation, to arrest the accused persons and to complete the investigation which is pending for a long time. In some cases prayers have been made to direct a further investigation after submission of the charge-sheet.

2. In these writ applications since the prayers contained are of the kinds stated hereinabove, this Court having discussed the issues involved in these cases with the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the State reached to a conclusion that a common order in these cases would serve the ends of justice. The cases in which requests were made to segregate and hear separately would be dealt with on case to case basis here-in-after.

3. Without going into the merit of the case, this Court proposes to dispose of these writ applications with appropriate directions in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are being discussed hereinafter.

A glance over the case-laws

(i) As back as in the year 1979, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360; held that speedy trial is a part of fundamental right to the life and liberty. It is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A proper and fair investigation has been held to be an essential component of the concept of speedy trial and it has it’s roots embedded in a reasonably fair and just procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in so many words held in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) that the State is under constitutional mandate to ensure a speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. Positive action such as augmenting and strengthening the investigating machinery, setting up new courts, building, building new court houses, providing more staff and equipments to the courts, appointment of additional judges and other measures have been mentioned as part of those measures which would be necessary to ensure speedy trial.

(ii) In A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. And “in every case, where the speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the first question to be put and answered is - who is responsible for the delay?”

(iii) In the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 907, the appellant moved an application before the Hon’ble Apex Court seeking an order for an inquiry to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the matter of the alleged murder of son of the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while acknowledging and reiterating the right of an aggrieved person to claim that an offence which he alleges be investigated properly reiterated that he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation & Another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and Another reported in 1996 AIR SCW 4249 has been referred to in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra).

The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that after registering the FIR if no proper investigation is being held, it would be open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. The views expressed by Hon’ble Court are being reproduced hereunder:—

“….if such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.