2014 (10) TMI 1009 - HC - Indian Laws

Expeditious investigation in the crime - Petition is one of the accused in the crime - HELD THAT - Now, the officer in charge of investigation has submitted report that the investigation is over practically, and that report on facts has already been submitted to the concerned authority. The investigating agency is now waiting for sanction to submit final report. In such a situation, the two writ petitions can be closed. The main prayer in both the petitions is to expedite the investigation. Once investigation is over, the other prayer need not be considered. The investigating officer has conducted investigation in all ways possible, and there are no irregularity or flaw in the investigation conducted by him. In the particular situation, there is no necessity to grant the second prayer made by the writ petitioner, ordering investigation by somebody else. Petition closed.

Summary

Issues involved: Writ petitions seeking a mandamus for expeditious investigation in a crime, and a prayer for investigation to be entrusted to a specific respondent.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10544/2014 is the complainant in a crime under investigation by the CBCID, while the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19484/2014 is the 6th respondent in the former petition, being one of the accused in the same crime. Both seek a writ of mandamus for expeditious investigation, with an additional prayer in W.P.(C) No. 10544/2014 for the investigation to be entrusted to the 5th respondent.

2. The investigating officer has reported that the investigation is practically complete, with the facts already submitted to the authority awaiting sanction for the final report. The court notes that the investigation has been conducted thoroughly without any irregularities or flaws. Consequently, the primary prayer for expeditious investigation is deemed unnecessary once the investigation is complete, rendering the second prayer for investigation by another entity redundant.

3. Upon reviewing the investigating officer's report, the court finds no justification to grant the second prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 10544/2014 for the investigation to be conducted by a different entity. Consequently, both writ petitions are closed as the investigation has been carried out satisfactorily, and there is no need for further intervention.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the request for a change in the investigating authority and closes both writ petitions, as the investigation has been conducted diligently without any irregularities.