9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of High Court's order for re-examination of completed investigation. 2. Validity of High Court's direction to stay proceedings and select a new investigating officer. 3. Justification for High Court's decision to seek assistance from a DGP-level officer. 4. Consideration of the accused's continuous evasion of arrest. 5. Jurisdiction and propriety of the High Court in entertaining the Section 482 application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of High Court's Order for Re-examination of Completed Investigation The Supreme Court found the High Court's order directing the re-examination of the completed investigation to be highly unusual and without justification. The High Court had asked the counsel for both parties to propose names of DGP-rank officers to re-examine the investigation, despite the charge sheet already being filed. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide any substantial reasons or findings to justify the need for re-investigation, especially after the charge sheet had been filed. 2. Validity of High Court's Direction to Stay Proceedings and Select a New Investigating Officer The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to stay the proceedings and select a new investigating officer. It was pointed out that the High Court had not examined the charge sheet nor provided any findings on the necessity of further investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the task of the Court to decide the fairness of the investigation, not an external police officer. The High Court's action was deemed inappropriate and unwarranted. 3. Justification for High Court's Decision to Seek Assistance from a DGP-level Officer The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision to seek assistance from a DGP-level officer to be perplexing and unnecessary. The High Court had not recorded any findings that the investigation was improperly conducted or required further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should have examined the charge sheet and recorded its own findings before seeking external assistance. 4. Consideration of the Accused's Continuous Evasion of Arrest The Supreme Court noted the accused's continuous evasion of arrest since the registration of the case in 2007. Despite multiple rejections of anticipatory bail applications, including by the Supreme Court, the accused had managed to remain outside custody. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not recognizing the accused's lack of bona fides and for entertaining his Section 482 application, which was seen as an attempt to stall the proceedings and avoid arrest. 5. Jurisdiction and Propriety of the High Court in Entertaining the Section 482 Application The Supreme Court questioned the propriety of the High Court in entertaining the Section 482 application filed by the accused, especially after the charge sheet had been filed and the matter was pending before the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have dismissed the application outright due to the complete lack of bona fides on the part of the accused. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dismiss the application and allowed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order, criticized its unusual and unwarranted directions, and emphasized the importance of judicial propriety and adherence to legal procedures. The Sessions Judge was directed to proceed with the case as per the law.
|
