The investigation must be unbiased, honest, and just, and fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The power to direct further investigation should be exercised sparingly and only in situations befitting high public interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law.

JUDGMENT

Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure P4), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners and Ajruddin, challenging the earlier order dated 16.11.2020, passed by the the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ballabgarh (Annexure P-3), was dismissed.

2. It may be mentioned that the present petitioners, namely Tohsif and Mohammad Rihan, were arrested on 26.10.2020 and 27.10.2020, respectively, after FIR No.667 dated 26.10.2020, under Sections 302, 364, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, was registered at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) to the effect that Nikita Tomar (since deceased), sister of the complainant Naveen Tomar, had been shot dead by petitioner No.1, after she had came out of the Aggarwal College, situated at Milk Plant Road, Ballabgarh, at around 3:30 pm on 26.10.2020. After completion of their investigation, the Police submitted their Final Report against the present petitioners and one Ajruddin, following which an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) and 2 (H) of the Cr.P.C. was filed on their behalf in the Court of Ld. JMIC, Faridabad (Annexure P-5), which was subsequently dismissed, and the revision preferred against dismissal of the same was also dismissed vide the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively).

3. The petitioners Tohsif and Mohammad Rihan have thereafter approached this Court to challenge the said impugned orders (Annexures P3 and P-4).

4. At the outset, it would be appropriate to first of all observe that grievance of the petitioners is essentially directed against the investigation, which according to them was hurriedly conducted by the Police Authorities, who submitted their Final Report in just eleven days after the FIR was lodged, and according to the petitioners, such hurried investigation was both unfair and improper. To further substantiate this contention, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the occurrence had taken place on 26.10.2020 and the petitioners got arrested, there was a huge outcry in the locality and it actually became a sensational case with profound Media coverage. In Grounds No. (c), (d) and (e) in sub Paras No.4 (c), 4(d) and 4(e) of the petition, it has been alleged that since petitioner No.1 happens to be a Muslim boy, the entire incident attracted a lot of Media coverage and was portrayed as a case of 'Love Jihad', after which on 30.10.2020, a Panchayat/gathering was arranged to pressurize the Administration and Police Officials, and the said gathering turned so violent that it caused a lot of damage to the public property and an FIR was also registered in this regard. Consequently, according to the petitioners, the Police Authorities hurriedly completed their investigation, "in an absolutely accelerated, arbitrary and pre-determined manner, in order to satisfy the mob and the false claim of the family of the deceased", and that an absolutely one sided enquiry was conducted to frame the petitioners at hand, and that the Final Report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed in undue haste and without awaiting the results of the alleged Scientific Investigations, claimed to be conducted by the Investigating Agency.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has thereafter also relied upon four judgments, all passed by the Apex Court, which constitute the Compendium sent up by her on 14.01.2021, in support of her aforesaid contentions, which are being taken up for consideration hereafter.

6. In "Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat", (2020) 1 RCR(Cri) 1, it was observed by the Apex Court:-

".... 16. Article 21 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the procedure in criminal trials must, after the seminal decision in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248,