9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1271 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking intervention - corrupt malpractices or not - seeking for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the CBI/Enforcement Directorate (ED), or any independent agency to conduct unbiased, uninfluenced, impartial and fair investigation in the various corrupt malpractices of Shri Deshmukh, the 6th respondent, as well as into the role played by Shri Param Bir - HELD THAT - Registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting an investigation has been held in MOHINDRO VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ORS. 2001 (1) TMI 987 - SC ORDER . Such registration could be facilitated if information were furnished or a complaint lodged disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. The jurisdictional fact for setting the criminal law in motion is traceable in the CrWP of Dr. Patil, who seems to have provided the necessary and crucial break through by lodging a complaint. She has brought to the notice of this Court the failure of the Senior Police Inspector, Malabar Hill Police Station to follow the legislative mandate as in Section 154 of the CrPC - before considering the question of relief that could at all be granted on the CrWP, we would be failing in our duty if we do not consider the decisions cited by Shri Kumbhakoni in support of his preliminary objection to the entertainability thereof. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very wide and the same is not and cannot be restricted by law; however, various judicial pronouncements have set the limits of exercise of such power or jurisdiction the limits being the self-imposed restrictions conceptualized through judicial wisdom. In the context of the nature of the concern expressed in the CrWP, the restriction to be kept in mind in deciding the question of entertainability is, whether there exists any equally efficacious alternative remedy in a criminal court and even if such a forum of redress is available, should the writ court entertain the writ petition - Where a person or authority is vested with a duty by specific statutory provisions, to compel such person or authority to perform such duty is certainly within the power and jurisdiction of a writ court. The exercise of such power will be consistent with the Constitutional provision which binds a person, on his elevation as a Judge, by the oath of office administered to him. Where, therefore, there is a duty to act, refusal is the least the law can tolerate. It is true that having regard to the self-imposed restrictions, a High Court exercising writ powers under Article 226 may refuse to entertain a challenge to an action/inaction of a public official who, being bound to perform certain mandatory duty, acts in disregard thereof, but it cannot be gainsaid that varying fact situations require different approaches, and it would be insensible to either envisage or lay down hard and fast guidelines of universal application. Rule of law, in terms of the Constitution, pervades over the entire field of administration and every organ of the State is regulated by it - The discretionary power that is vested in the High Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights or for any other purpose is meant to be exercised on considerations of justice, and for eradicating injustice. It is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution can direct the CBI to investigate into any specific case or to conduct an inquiry against a person. It can do so only when there is sufficient material before the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such an inquiry. Certainly, such an inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes an allegation. If after considering the materials on record the Court concludes that such materials disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI, the Court can make the necessary order - A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. It was observed that the public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them. The Court also observed that functioning of a democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination. It is certainly an issue of credibility of the State machinery, which would stare at the face when confronted with the expectations of the law and when such complaints are received against high ranking public officials. This Court cannot be a mere spectator in these circumstances. There is certainly a legitimate public expectation of a free, fair, honest and impartial inquiry and investigation into such allegations which have surfaced in the public domain. The necessity to have a probe into such allegations by an independent agency, would also certainly be a requirement of the rule of law. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the PILs and CrWP. 2. Allegations against the Home Minister and the need for an independent investigation. 3. Non-registration of FIR based on Dr. Patil's complaint. 4. Appropriate forum for addressing grievances related to police transfers and postings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the PILs and CrWP: The Advocate General argued that the PIL filed by Shri Param Bir is not maintainable as it seeks personal benefits and is based on hearsay evidence. The court noted that the allegations are serious and affect the administration at large, but decided to focus on the complaint lodged by Dr. Patil. The court concluded that the PILs and CrWP are maintainable due to the serious nature of the allegations and the lack of action by the police on Dr. Patil's complaint. 2. Allegations Against the Home Minister and the Need for an Independent Investigation: The allegations of corruption and interference in police investigations by the Home Minister, Shri Deshmukh, were deemed serious. The court noted that the police department is under the control of the Home Minister, making an impartial investigation by the state police unlikely. The court decided that an independent agency like the CBI should conduct a preliminary inquiry to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation. 3. Non-Registration of FIR Based on Dr. Patil's Complaint: Dr. Patil's complaint, which included the letter from Shri Param Bir, disclosed cognizable offences but was not acted upon by the police. The court emphasized that the police's failure to register an FIR or notify Dr. Patil of the non-investigation was against the law. The court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into Dr. Patil's complaint within 15 days. 4. Appropriate Forum for Addressing Grievances Related to Police Transfers and Postings: The court acknowledged that Shri Param Bir's grievances regarding police transfers and postings, and the enforcement of the directions in Prakash Singh, should be raised before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The court ordered the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the complaint lodged by Dr. Patil, which includes the allegations made by Shri Param Bir against the Home Minister. The inquiry should be completed within 15 days, and the CBI Director will decide on the future course of action based on the findings. The PILs and CrWP were disposed of, with the liberty granted to Shri Param Bir to address his grievances regarding police transfers and postings before the appropriate forum.
|
