2012 (7) TMI 1107 - SC - Indian Laws

Remand in favour of the investigating agency without seeking any specific prayer challenging the remand orders - HELD THAT - When the accused appellant in the instant matter had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court it was all the more essential and judicial duty of the Judicial Magistrate to ensure and ascertain as to why the appellant was required to be taken into police custody/police remand for conducting further investigation specially when revival of the investigation was done not even at the instance of the complainant but by a third person namely Sri Parmar whose locus-standi for revival of the investigation is itself not clear. We find sufficient force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the plea for grant of police remand should be an exception and not the rule and the investigating agency ought to advance strong reasons seeking police remand for further investigation specially in a matter where the alleged accused had been enlarged on bail and the dispute had practically come to an end when the complainant had arrived at a compromise with the accused persons and subsequently withdrew the complaint; yet the investigation was revived at the instance of a stranger namely Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar who admittedly is a third party unconnected with the dispute and is alleged to have demanded money from the appellants by taking undue interest in the matter and getting the investigation revived without the consent of the complainant who herself had entered into a compromise with the appellant and had not sought revival of the complaint. Be that as it may the fact remains that the learned Magistrate as also the High Court appears to have adopted a casual or a mechanical approach permitting police remand of the appellants without scrutinizing the reasons ignoring the fact that the appellants had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court and the dispute with the complainant Surjaben who had lodged the complaint had already been settled. Thus the existing facts and circumstance prima facie were clearly not so grave or extraordinary justifying police remand which could have been overlooked by the High Court even though it was for three days only as it was bound to have ramification not only affecting the liberty of the person who was already granted bail but also the magistrate nullifying the order of the High Court granting bail even if it was for a period of three days only. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court as also the Judicial Magistrate were not legally justified in permitting the police remand of the appellants even for three days in the wake of the existing facts and features of the matter narrated hereinbefore. Consequently we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court as also the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Valod permitting police remand of the appellants and thus allow this appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of police remand.
2. Validity of the High Court's order reviving the investigation.
3. Impact of the compromise between the complainant and the appellants.
4. Legal provisions regarding police remand and judicial scrutiny.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Police Remand:
The appellants challenged the order granting police remand on the grounds that it lacked valid or justifiable reasons and encroached on their personal liberty. The Supreme Court emphasized that police remand should be an exception and not the rule. The investigating agency must make a strong case and satisfy the magistrate that police custody is essential for further investigation. The magistrate must judicially scrutinize and provide reasons for granting police remand, especially when the accused has already been enlarged on bail. The court found that the magistrate and the High Court did not provide sufficient reasons for the police remand, making their orders unsustainable.

2. Validity of the High Court's Order Reviving the Investigation:
The High Court had allowed a third party, Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar, to revive the investigation despite the complainant withdrawing her complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the revival of the investigation at the instance of a third party unconnected with the dispute was questionable. However, since the appellants did not challenge this order, the Supreme Court did not examine this aspect further.

3. Impact of the Compromise Between the Complainant and the Appellants:
The complainant, Surjaben, had entered into a compromise with the appellants and withdrew her complaint. The Judicial Magistrate initially directed the return of the complaint based on this compromise. The Supreme Court found that the High Court and the magistrate overlooked the fact that the complainant had chosen not to pursue the complaint. The revival of the investigation by a third party and the subsequent police remand were not justified, especially when the dispute had been settled through a compromise.

4. Legal Provisions Regarding Police Remand and Judicial Scrutiny:
The Supreme Court reiterated the legal provisions under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandate that an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The magistrate can authorize detention in police custody only in special circumstances with judicial scrutiny. The court emphasized that police remand cannot exceed fifteen days in total and must be justified with clear and cogent reasons. The court found that the magistrate and the High Court failed to adhere to these legal provisions, and the police remand was granted without sufficient justification.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Judicial Magistrate permitting police remand of the appellants. The court held that the orders were not legally justified, given the existing facts and circumstances, including the compromise between the complainant and the appellants and the lack of sufficient reasons for the police remand. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for strict judicial scrutiny and adherence to legal provisions in granting police remand.