9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of proper investigation into an alleged offence u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on a change of Investigating Officer directed by the High Court. Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed against the common impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated September 08, 2009. The High Court had changed the Investigating Officer and appointed a Special Investigating Officer to investigate the alleged offence. However, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors., stating that the proper remedy for a grievance regarding FIR registration or investigation lies in approaching the concerned Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for FIR registration or proper investigation to avoid being flooded with such petitions. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, directing the concerned Magistrate to ensure proper investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recommend a change of Investigating Officer if necessary. The Magistrate was also authorized to monitor the investigation process. Parties were allowed to submit material before the Magistrate, who was instructed to disregard any observations in the High Court's order. Separate Judgment by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
