The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot correct trivial errors; substantial evidence is required to establish charges under the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises from a deeply unsettling and emotionally charged case where the petitioner — a grieving father — seeks justice for the mysterious and suspicious death of his son, Hasmukh. The gravamen of the complaint is that the petitioner’s son, Hasmukh, who had gone to his in-laws’ residence to bring back his wife, was found dead under suspicious circumstances. Allegations of a calculated conspiracy involving not just the in-laws (accused Nos. 1 to 5), but also police officers (accused Nos. 6 and 7), even doctors who conducted the postmortem (accused Nos. 8 and 9), form the foundation of the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under several serious provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).

2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, initially adopted a cautious approach by ordering a criminal inquiry and recording statements of witnesses under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”). However, being dissatisfied with the outcome of such own inquiry, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order directing the Superintendent of Police to constitute a special investigating team and conduct further inquiry under Section 202(1) of the CrPC, and to submit a report.

2.1. Despite this additional inquiry, doubts continued to linger in the mind of the learned Magistrate. On 25.01.2006, not satisfied with the medical version presented, the Court summoned the very doctors who had conducted the autopsy adopting course of conducting inquiry at his end again. Eventually, upon the bifurcation of the district and the matter falling under the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Anand, further inquiry ensued, culminating in the issuance of process under Section 204 of the CrPC against Jasodaben Makwana, Nitinbhai Makwana, and Bhavesh Makwana, for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 114 of the IPC. Thus, what began as a father's desperate plea for justice has now evolved into a full-blown legal battle, raising questions about complicity, cover-up, and the sanctity of criminal investigation.

2.2. The complainant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred a Criminal Revision Application No.49 of 2011 under Section 397 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court at Anand, limiting the challenge to only three persons against whom process had been is-sued. The revision application came to be dismissed.

2.3. The said concurrent findings have now been assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original complainant, contending that the learned Trial Court ought to have issued process for the offence under Section IPC, along with other offences as alleged in the private complaint.

2.4. Curiously, the revision proceedings were confined only to three individuals—Jasodaben Makwana, Nitinbhai Makwana, and Bhavesh Makwana—but in the present petition, the petitioner has imploded as respondents all the persons who were originally arrayed as accused in the private complaint, despite the fact that no process was issued against the rest.

3. In the context of the aforementioned facts, I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Suresh B. Bhatt for the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Riddhesh Trivedi for