2003 Supreme(Guj) 434

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.P.Buch
JASHUBHAI DHANABHAI BARAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.CRI.A. 577 of 2003
Decided On : 08/04/2003

Headnote:

Constitution of India Article 226 –Indian Penal Code -Sections 307, 326, 34 and 114 -Bombay Police Act, 1951 -Section 135 -Arms Act -Section 25 -Petitioner herein has preferred this petition for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Government directing reinvestigation of the criminal complaint instituted by the third respondent being CR. I-45/2002 registered before police station in respect of offences said to have been committed at 14. 30 aforesaid FIR was filed by one against two unknown persons for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, .names of the accused persons were disclosed and accordingly they were arrested. They were charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and since the offence in question was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Veraval and it has been registered there as Sessions Case No. 85/02. These facts are not very much in dispute. Thereeafter the State Government felt that further investigation was necessary and therefore, the State Government decided to go for further investigation and instructed CID Crime, Junagadh unit to undertake further investigation. This fact is also not much in dispute. The petitioner herein states that the above decision has been taken by the State Government in colorable exercise of powers with a view to involve the petitioner and other persons in the said offence, though the petitioner had absolutely no connection with the said offence and his name has not been disclosed at any point of time during the stage of investigation. That therefore, with a view to politically victimise and harass the petitioner, further investigation was directed without authority of law. That the State Government has taken the said decision without the permission or order of the Court concerned and, therefore, the said decision is illegal and consequently the investigation pursuant to the said decision undertaken by the CID Crime, Junagadh unit is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition with a prayer as aforesaid. ON receiving the petition notice was issued and in response to the service of notice,learned APP has appeared on behalf of the State. I have heard, learned Sr. Advocate appearing, for the petitioner and, learned APP appearing for the State. Both of them have taken me through the aforesaid FIR at page No. 16 and other materials on record. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner with learned Advocate has heavily assailed on the State Governments decision for further investigation mainly harping on the point that further investigation was directed without the order of the concerned. On the other hand, learned APP as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent both have argued that the permission was obtained and technically speaking, no such permission was required to be obtained and, therefore, the petitioner has no case. It has further been argued by them that the petitioner has no locus to file the petition and, therefore, their prayer is that the petition be dismissed at the admission stage –Held above documents go to show that the Investigating police officer had approached the Court for indirect permission to further investigate the matter as said above. Technically, such a permission is not needed but as per the observation of the Honble the Supreme Court, the Investigating Police Officer is required to approach the Court for a formal order with a view to apprise the Court that further investigation is undertaken. It is true that as observed above, the application submitted by the Investigating Officer is not properly worded but actually it conveyed the meaning that the Investigating Officer intended to obtain permission from the Court concerned for further investigation under section 173 (8) of the Code. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that further investigation is unauthorised and illegal. Once the further investigation undertaken by the Police Inspector of CID Crime, is not found to be illegal or unauthorised, prima facie, and when prima facie, it is not found that such an investigation is undertaken without the leave of the Court, there is no merit in the present petition and, therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Notice discharged. –Petition is Dismmised.