IMPORTANT POINTS
In a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The rights course of the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The appellants may if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 06.01.2020 in W.P.(C) No.12551 of 2019. The relief’s sought for in the writ petition are as under:

“1.To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to transfer the investigation in crime no.1/2018 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam District to the police under the 1st respondent.

2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to appoint a superior police officer not below the rank of SP to conduct reinvestigation/further investigation in crime no.1/2018 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam District.”

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

“W.P.(C) No.12551 of 2019 is filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent -the Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, to transfer investigation in Crime No.1/2018 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam District to the police under the 1st respondent-the Director General of Police, and also seeking consequent reliefs. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 06.01.2020, appellant pressed for the reliefs sought in the writ petition. But, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, writ court dismissed the same. Being aggrieved and totally dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal before this Court at this stage seeking appropriate reliefs.”

3. After considering the rival submissions and taking note of the decisions in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2011 SC 1804], Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India [(2016) 1 SCC 1], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rajesh Gandhi [AIR 1997 SC 93] and Romila Thapar v. Union of India [AIR 2018 SC 4683], writ court, dismissed the writ petition on 06.01.2020, by observing thus:

“10. The accused can avail of such remedies as may be permissible in law before the jurisdictional courts at different stages during the investigation as well as the trial of the offence under investigation. During the investigation, the accused can avail the appropriate remedies permissible under law such as seeking bail. During the trial of the case, the accused can opt for the remedy of discharge at the appropriate stage. He can also opt for quashing of the criminal case, if there is no legal evidence whatsoever, to indicate his complicity in the commission of the offence.

11. Merely because the person arraigned as an accused feels that he has been falsely implicated, he cannot seek direction for the police to conduct the investigation from his defence point of view also. Investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the investigating officer. It is true that free and fair investigation is the fundamental right of the accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the courts have only limited power to interfere with the investigation of a case. The court cannot issue directions to the investigating officer to investigate the case from a particular point of view.

12. In the light of the principles mentioned above, the prayer made by the petitioner, who is an accused in the case, for further investigation/re-investigation of the case by an agency/officer of his choice, cannot be granted.

13. Moreover, this Court also takes note of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that, on enquiry made by the superior officers of the Excise Department with regard to the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding his false implication in the case, it has been found that there is no substance in his complaint in that regard.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, none of the prayers made in the writ petition can be allowed. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”

4. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:

“A. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is highly inc