ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) To direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to constitute an independent agency for fair, proper and speedy investigation into the matter looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/direction/order to direct the respondent no. 3 to 5 to make fair and proper investigation against the private respondents as well as other persons involved and further be pleased to direct to the respondent no. 3 to 5 to take necessarily sanction of the concerned authority for prosecution as deem fit under the law.

(iii) To direct the respondent no. 3 to 5 to arrest immediately to the accused persons who are moving freely as also direct to the respondent no. 3 to 5 to seize the original documents from the possession of the private respondents, various concerned department and person involved with regard to the aforesaid case.

(iv) To direct the official respondents to take necessarily sincere steps/ efforts and action for arresting of respondent no. 8, who is beneficiary in the fabricated, forge will and wherever he is.

(v) To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of present case.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that free, fair and proper investigation is not being done by the police, although FIR has been registered.

3. Moot question for consideration is as to whether this Court can supervise investigation or not? 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 has held that Constitutional Court can monitor investigation but cannot supervise investigation. It has been held as under :-

“38. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing or channelling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea is to retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry/investigation into the alleged crime;

that inquiry/investigation into every accusation is made on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the logical conclusion in accordance with law. The monitoring by the Court aims to lend credence to the inquiry/investigation being conducted by CBI as premier investigating agency and to eliminate any impression of bias, lack of fairness and objectivity therein.

39. However, the investigation/inquiry monitored by the court does not mean that the court supervises such investigation/inquiry. To supervise would mean to observe and direct the execution of a task whereas to monitor would only mean to maintain surveillance. The concern and interest of the court in such “Court-directed” or “Court-monitored” cases is that there is no undue delay in the investigation, and the investigation is conducted in a free and fair manner with no external interference. In such a process, the people acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case would also have a sense of security and they would cooperate with the investigation given that the superior courts are seized of the matter. We find that in some cases, the expression “Court-monitored”

has been interchangeably used with “Court- supervised investigation”. Once the court supervises an investigation, there is hardly anything left in the trial. Under the Code, the investigating officer is only to form an opinion and it is for the court to ultimately try the case based on the opinion formed by the investigating officer and see whether any offence has been made out. If a superior court supervises the investigation and thus facilitates the formulation of such opinion in the form of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code, it will be difficult if not impossible for the trial court to not be influenced or bound by such opinion.

Then trial becomes a farce. Therefore, supervision of investigation by any cour