The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation if the police investigation is found to be perfunctory, and the victim or close relative of the deceased is not entitled to notice from the Magistrate but can appear before the Magistrate and make submissions when the report is considered by the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

Factual Matrix :

1. In an accident that took place on 20.05.2011, son of respondent No.3, namely Sarabjeet Singh, who was riding on his motorcycle, was hit by an allegedly rashly driven grey coloured Bajaj Chetak scooter. The son of respondent No.3 fell down from his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. The injured son of respondent No.3 remained lying on spot for half an hour and was not shifted by anybody to the hospital. Respondent No.3, on being informed about the accident by one Mandeep Singh, rushed to the spot and shifted his son to the hospital. However, he was declared brought dead.

2. With regard to the aforesaid incident, FIR No. 115/2011 came to be registered at the Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Apprehending that the matter shall not be investigated by the police in a fair manner due to the influence of the petitioner, respondent No.3 filed OWP No.1483/2011 before this Court seeking, inter alia, a direction to the police to hand over the investigation to the Crime Branch. This Court did not accede to the request of respondent No.3 for transfer of investigation, but instead directed the SP South Jammu to entrust the investigation to an Investigating Officer other than SDPO Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. It is alleged that due to the influence of the petitioner, the new Investigating Officer also did not carry out the investigation in a fair and transparent manner which constrained respondent No.3 to again approach this Court by filing OWP No.491/2012.The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2012 directing the IGP Jammu to personally supervise and monitor the investigation. Be that as it is, the police completed the investigation and submitted a final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt., 1989[‘J&K Cr.PC’]before the Judicial Magistrate 1stClass(Sub-Judge), Jammu [‘the learned Magistrate’]. In the report, the police concluded that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased son of respondent No.3 and therefore, he alone was guilty of commission of offence under Section 279/304-A RPC. The final report submitted by the police before the Court was accepted and the challan was disposed of as having been abated due to the death of the accused.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate dated 2nd July, 2014, respondent No.3, the father of the deceased, filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu[‘the Revisional Court’]. The Revisional Court disposed of the revision petition vide its order dated 29.10.2014. The order dated 2nd July, 2014 passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld on merits. However, the Revisional Court observed that the protest petition filed by respondent No.3 before the learned Magistrate ought to have been entertained and disposed of and, thus, directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said protest petition on merits. Pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Revisional Court, the learned Magistrate considered the protest petition of respondent No.3 and accordingly, directed the SHO P/S Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to conduct reinvestigation in the light of observations made in his order passed on 11thJuly 2016. The learned Magistrate in his order dated 11th July, 2016 has pointed suspicion on the involvement of the petitioner and, thus, directed reinvestigation in the matter. Two orders, one dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Revisonal Court and another dated 11thJuly 2016 passed by the learned Magistrate are subject matter of challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A of J&K Cr.P.C which was then in force in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Grounds of challenge:

4. The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds :

(i) That the learned Magistrate, or for that matter, the Revisional