2004 (9) TMI 655 - SC - Indian Laws

Transfer of investigation to an impartial agency - expeditious trial and disposal of Sessions Case - Disciplinary action against judicial and police officers - Discharge of accused and commitment of other respondents for trial - HELD THAT - There is no provision in the Code to file a protest petition by the informant who lodged the first information report. But this has been the practice. Absence of a provision in the Code relating to filing of a protest petition has been considered. This Court was Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another 1985 (4) TMI 327 - SUPREME COURT stressed on the desirability of intimation being given to the information when a report under Section 173(2) is under consideration. There is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. This Court further hold that the position is different so far as an injured person or a relative of the deceased who is not an informant is concerned. They are not entitled to any notice. This Court felt that the question relating to issue of notice and grant of opportunity as afore- described was of general importance and directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the High Courts in all the States so that the High Courts in their rum may circulate the same among the Magistrates within their respective jurisdictions. When the information is laid with the Police but no action in that behalf is taken the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case instead of issuing process to the accused he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action he is empowered to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court s order stating that the writ application was not the proper remedy. The appellant should have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of investigation to an impartial agency.
2. Expeditious trial and disposal of Sessions Case.
3. Discharge of accused and commitment of other respondents for trial.
4. Disciplinary action against judicial and police officers.
5. Costs and other orders in the interest of justice.

Summary:

1. Transfer of Investigation to an Impartial Agency:
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of Cr. No. 257/87 from State CID to another impartial agency. The High Court dismissed this request, noting that the case was already committed to the Sessions Court, Palghar, and thus, there was no question of transferring the investigation to another agency.

2. Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Sessions Case:
The appellant requested the Sessions Judge, Palghar, to try and dispose of Sessions Case No. 62/89 within three months. The High Court found no merit in this request as the case was already pending before the Sessions Court.

3. Discharge of Accused and Commitment of Other Respondents for Trial:
The appellant sought the discharge of four adivasi accused and the commitment of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for trial. The High Court noted that the matter had been extensively reviewed by various courts, and the learned J.M.F.C. Vasai had directed further investigation as per the directions given.

4. Disciplinary Action Against Judicial and Police Officers:
The appellant alleged incompetence and unfairness by the Investigating Officers and some judicial officers. The High Court found no basis for these allegations, noting that the judicial officers acted within the four corners of the law.

5. Costs and Other Orders in the Interest of Justice:
The appellant sought costs and any other orders deemed fit in the interest of justice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and should have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of filing a writ petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, stating that the writ application was not the proper remedy. The appellant should have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.