Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sheel Nagu and B.D. Rathi, JJ.
Avadhesh Singh Tomar and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.2352 of 2015 (PIL) (Gwalior); Decided on 24.4.2015.
Held : It is not a question before this Court to consider whether trial includes “investigation” or not. Certainly, trial is something different from investigation. In this context, we need not to emphasize or elaborate further word “inquiry” or “trial”. It is settled law that both are different procedure as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On bare perusal of section 93 CrPC, it indicates that provisions given under section 93(1)(c) is something different from sections 93(1)(a) and 93(1)(b). The provisions given in sub-clause (c) provides where the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or “other proceeding” under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection, in that event search warrant can be issued.
General search warrant may be issued by the Court competent by invoking powers under section 93(1)(c) of CrPC. There is no rider or exception that prior to take action as per provisions given under section 165 of CrPC, search warrant can not be issued by the competent Court by invoking powers under section 93(1)(c) of CrPC. Therefore, the Investigating Agency may take search as per provisions under section 165 of CrPC or if required may approach the competent Court under section 93(1)(c) of CrPC, as the case may be. 1976 CrLJ 50 relied on. AIR 1980 SC 185 followed. (2009)10 SCC 488, (2014)5 SCC 530, AIR 1985 SC 195, AIR 1955 SC 196, AIR 1954 SC 415, AIR 1972 SC 484, AIR 1957 SC 142, 2013Legal /Eagle SC 10, (2013)2 SCC 649 and (2013)1 SCC 314 referred to.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.19(1)(c) and 20 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.93(1)(a), (b) and (c) -- provisions under this section -- not hit by provisions of Articles 19(1)(c) and 20 of Constitution -- search warant can be issued.
Held : The provisions of section 93(1)(c) is not hit by Article 20(a) of the Constitution of India.
After thus examining the matter to a rigorous test on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court, it can be safely held that there is no violation of Article 19(1) or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India in issuing search warrant by the Courts. AIR 1954 SC 300 and AIR 1980 SC 185 followed.
[Para 14
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.93(1)(c) -- during investigation -- search warrant issued under this section -- writ petition against it for issuance writ of mandamus -- issuing such warrant is discretionary in nature -- no bar for invoking such powers -- issuance of search warrant -- does not tantamount to interfere with investigation -- when law permits the competent Court to issue such warrant -- writ of mandamus cannot be issued. [Para 16
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 93¼1½¼d½] ¼[k½] ¼x½ rFkk 165 & Hkz”Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 3] 4 rFkk 5 & ;kphx.k ds fo:} 1988 ds vf/kfu;e rFkk vU; fofHkUu vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu vijk/k jftLVMZ & vUos”k.k ds nkSjku & D;k 1988 ds v/khu fu;qDr fo’ks”k U;k;k/kh’k }kjk ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS & fopkj.k ,oa vUos”k.k & dqN fHkUu gS & ‘kCn fopkj.k ;k tk¡p & nksuksa fHkUu izfdz;k gS & tgk¡ U;k;ky; ;g le>rk gS fd na-iz-la- ds v/khu dksbZ tk¡p] fopkj.k ;k vU; dk;Zokgh ds iz;kstuksa dh iwfrZ lk/kkj.k ryk’kh ;k fujh{k.k ls gksxh & ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj djus ds fy, ;g iz’u ugha gS fd D;k fopkj.k esa vUos”k.k lfEefyr gS ;k ughaA fuf’pr :i ls] fopkj.k vUos”k.k ls dqN fHkUu gSA bl lanHkZ esa gesa ‘kCn tk¡p ;k fopkj.k ij cy nsus ;k lfoLrkj izfrikfnr djus dh vko’;drk ugha gSA ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd nksuksa fHkUu izfdz;k gSa tSlk fd naM izfdz;k lafgrk ds v/khu ifjHkkf”kr gSA naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 93 ds ek= voyksdu ls] minf’kZr gksrk gS fd /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu iznr mica/k /kkjk 93¼1½¼d½ ,oa 93¼1½¼[k½ ls dqN fHkUu gSA mi[kaM ¼x½ esa iznr mica/k ;g mica/k djrs gSa fd tgk¡ U;k;ky; ;g le>rk gS fd bl lafgrk ds v/khu dksbZ tk¡p] fopkj.k ;k vU; dk;Zokgh ds iz;kstuksa dh iwfrZ lk/kkj.k ryk’kh ;k fujh{k.k ls gksxh] bl fo”k; esa ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr;ksa dks vkg~oku dj lk/kkj.k ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slk dksbZ jkbMj ;k viokn ugha gS fd na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 165 esa fn, x, mica/kksa vuqlkj dk;Zokgh ds iwoZ l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr;ksa dk vkg~oku dj ryk’kh okjaV tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy,] vUos”kd vfHkdj.k na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 165 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj ryk’kh ys ldrk gS ;k ;fn visf{kr gks rc na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu l{ke U;k;ky; esa igq¡p ldrk gS] tSlh fLFkfr gksA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 19¼1½¼x½ rFkk 20 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 93¼1½¼d½] [k rFkk ¼x½ & bl /kkjk ds v/khu mica/k & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 93¼1½¼x½ ,oa 20 }kjk vk?kkfrr ugha & ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ dk mica/k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 20¼d½ }kjk vk?kkfrr ugha gSA
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk dlkSVh ds dfBu ijh{k.k ij vf/kdfFkr fof/k ds fl}karksa ds vk/kkj ij ekeys dk ijh{k.k djus ds i’pkr~ fuf’pr :i ls ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk ryk’kh okjaV tkjh djus esa Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 19¼1½ ;k vuqPNsn 20¼3½ dk mYya?ku ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 300 rFkk , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 185 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 93¼1½¼x½ & vUos”k.k ds nkSjku & bl /kkjk ds v/khu ryk’kh okjaV tkjh fd;k x;k & blds fo:} ijekns’k fjV tkjh djus ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk & ,slk okjaV tkjh djuk oSosfdd izd`fr dk gS & ,slh ‘kfDr;ksa dk vkgku~ djus ds fy, dksbZ otZu ugha & ,slk okjaV tkjh djuk & vUos”k.k ds lkFk gLr{ksi djus dh dksfV esa ugha vkrk & tc l{ke U;k;ky; dks fof/k ,slk okjaV tkjh djus ds fy, vuqKkr djrh gS & ijekns’k fjV tkjh ugha dh tk ldrhA
¼iSjk 16½
Rathi, J. -- 1. This writ petition in the style of Pro Bono Publico has been filed by the petitioners, claiming following reliefs :
“1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No.3 to 8 not to seek search warrants under section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purposes of search and seizure for investigation of registered offence under the P.C. Act, 1988 and other various Acts.
2. The competent Special Courts notified under the P.C. Act, 1988, be also directed not to issue Search warrants to the respondents for the routine course search and seizure for the investigation of Offences registered under the P.C. Act and other various Acts.
3. Furthermore the respondents be directed to strictly comply with the provisions as contained under section 165 and section 166 of Code of Criminal procedure and other relevant sections enacted for the purpose of Search and Seizure for investigation of Offences registered under the P.C. Act 1988 and other various Acts.
4. That, any other suitable and proper relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit for doing justice in the matter may be granted.”
2. In support of the petition, it is submitted by Shri Mishra, learned counsel that in a routine manner and frequently the police agency obtains a search warrant from the concerning Court under section 93 of CrPC in the prescribed appended Formate No.10, which is not permissible because specific provision under section 165 of CrPC has been made by the legislation for the purposes of making search but even then by shifting burden and also to avoid statutory duty, such a process is being adopted. That apart, the power under section 93 of CrPC cannot be used by the Court for issuing search warrant when matter is under investigation because this power can be exercised at the moment the orders are passed by the Court competent under section 91 or 92 of CrPC but in no way search warrant can be issued during the course of investigation. It is submitted by the counsel that there is a difference between the inquiry and investigation. The word “investigation” has not been included in inquiry. Attention of this court has been drawn on this point by referring the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal [AIR 1985 SC 195], H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196], Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. [AIR 1954 SC 415], Hazari Lal Gupa v. Rameshwar Prasad [AIR 1972 SC 484], Niranjan Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 142], Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others [2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 10], M.C. Abraham and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2003)2 SCC 649], and Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben v. State of Gujrat and others [(2013)1 SCC 314].
3. It is further argued by the counsel that it is statutory obligation and duty of police authority to investigate into crime and Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide investigating agency as to in what manner investigation has to proceed. But unfortunately simply on the request of the Investigating Agency the trial Courts concerned are issuing search warrants under section 93 of CrPC without applying their minds. This practice should be stopped by issuing appropriate writ. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has taken support from the ratio of decision in the case of D.Venkatasubramaniam and others v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamchari and another [(2009)10 SCC 488].
4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that an alternative efficacious remedy is available in such matters and in that eventuality the concerned person can approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved from such kind of search warrant but even then writ jurisdiction can be resorted to in order to avoid multiplicity of dispute. In support of such plea, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and others [(2014)5 SCC 530].
5. Substantially and essentially, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
