The court emphasized the necessity of proper supervision in serious criminal investigations to prevent prosecutorial lapses, affirming that both victims and accused have the right to a fair investigation.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

Heard on the maintainability of the writ appeal.

02. The present writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (in short 'the Adhiniyam of 2005') has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.28712 of 2024.

03. The respondent approached the Single Bench by way of sixth application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita / 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) seeking bail in connection with FIR / Crime No.270/2020 registered at Police Station - Industrial Area, District - Ratlam for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 , 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE & Sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT .

04. During the arguments, the Court found lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer as he did not collect the chance fingerprint from the spot, where the robbery took place and a woman was murdered brutally. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer was not found satisfactory and the Court further held him negligent in discharging his duties.

05. In such circumstances learned Court has issued direction to the Director General of Police, Bhopal (M.P.) for formation of ''Serious Crime Investigation Supervising Team'' in each districts comprising of two member, in which one shall be senior level police officer, not below the rank of of experienced IPS Officer and other officer of the Police Department not below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police. The said team shall supervise the investigation and rule of Investigating Officer before submitting the charge-sheet before the concerned Court.

06. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Adhiniyam of 2005. The Registry of this Court has raised objection about maintainability of the present writ appeal.

07. The State Government enacted the Adhiniyam of 2005 to provide for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of the original Jurisdiction, to the Division Bench of the same High Court. Section 2 (1) provides that an appeal shall lie from a Judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two judges of the same High Court. As per proviso to the said section, no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

08. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants / State submits that although the order has been passed in M.Cr.C. but the Hon'ble Judge has issued the direction like the Writ court, therefore, the present writ appeal has been filed. Shri Bhargava further submits that in similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench at Principal Seat at Jabalpur had already entertained Writ Appeal No.396 of 2023 ( The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Sanant Kumar Jaiswal Alias Sant Kumar ) filed against the order passed in M.Cr.C. No.24271 of 2022. The Division Bench has set aside the order in the writ appeal by observing that the learned Single Judge went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing such directions in bail matter.

8.1. Shri Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that in most of the Districts only one IPS Officer is posted as Superintendent of Police and if he is given this additional duty of supervising the investigation and examination of the charge-sheet, it would be extra burden on him. Therefore, the order be modified by appointing DSP or SDOP, as the case may be, the h