Bombay High Court: The instant appeal was preferred under Section of the (“MCOCA”), challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune that allowed the Protest Petition filed by Respondent 2, rejecting the Report filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CrPC”) and directing the IO to conduct detailed investigation on the statements of the witnesses and submit a chargesheet against the appellant. The Division Bench of AS Gadkari* and Shyam C Chandak, JJ., transferring the investigation to the State Crime Investigation Department (“CID”), modified the order of the Trial Court, to the extent of filing a chargesheet, and upheld the same.
Background and Legal Trajectory
The Respondent 2 in the instant case prayed for the transfer of the crime registered with the Police Station to CID, CBI, or any other independent investigation machinery, and sought a direction to add another person as an accused in the crime.
Respondent 2 had lodged an FIR with the Police Station under Sections , , , , read with of the (“IPC”), and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act against multiple accused persons who were associates of the appellant, for attempt to murder her husband in a shootout, during which he was injured, and for verbally threatening to “finish” him. The motive behind the crime was stated to be political and business rivalry.
During investigation, the IO found that one of the accused was operating an organised crime syndicate, and the IO sought the approval for invoking the provisions of the MCOCA against the accused persons, and the same was granted.
The appellant was arrested, however was later exonerated and released on interim bail due to no evidence existing to indict him.
Respondent 2 filed Protest Petition before the Trial Court, which was allowed through its order, that also directed the IO to conduct a detailed investigation, and the appellant to surrender before the IO.
Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s order, the appellant preferred a petition before a single-Judge Bench of the instant Court, which was dismissed on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant preferred a Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, which was also was dismissed.
Post the dismissal, the appellant was arrested but a subsequent IO exonerated him on all charges, reporting no evidence against the appellant. Respondent 2 filed another Protest Petition against the IO’s report before the Trial Court, wherein the IO’s report was rejected, and the IO was ordered to conduct detailed investigation and submit a chargesheet. The appellant then challenged the aforesaid order of the Trial Court in the instant appeal.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court noted that the Trial Court had considered and scrutinised the material on record in detail and had passed an elaborate order. The Court found that the impugned order did not require any interference, except with the direction to file chargesheet.
Relying on the Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, , the Court held that the direction of the Trial Court to the extent of directing the police to submit ‘charge-sheet’ against the appellant, needed to be deleted.
However, the Court viewed that the investigation in the instant case was not properly conducted by the police and needed to be conducted as per the directions issued by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Court modified the Trial Court’s order to the extent of chargesheet against the appellant.
Prayer of transferring investigation to another agency
The Court thereafter considered the prayer by the Respondent 2 for transferring the investigation to another Investigating Agency.
The Court upon the perusal of the evidence and the statements, opined that the appellant clearly had a role in the conspiracy of attacking him.
The Court viewed that the police were attempting to give a clean chit to the appellant due to his political influence and otherwise.
The Court noted that the single-Judge Bench had held that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant, based on the statements of Respondent 2’s husband.
The Court also noted that the order of the single Judge Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court stated that it was imperative for the police to adhere to the single-Bench order, and that the IO had the audacity to overlook the single-Bench’s observations, as it is not the law of the land.
The Court observed that the appellant’s complicity in the crime was sufficiently inferred from the material on record, and that the IO appeared to have protected the appellant.
In this light, the Court highlighted Amar Nath Chaubey v. Union of India, , wherein it had been observed by the Supreme Court that, “once the conscience of the court is satisfied that the police has not investigated properly, the court is bound by a constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law”.
The High Court reiterated Supreme Court’s observations in Amar Nath Chaubey (supra) that “investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police.”
The Court also referred to Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, , wherein the Supreme Court observed that the where the court finds that the police officer has exercised his investigatory powers in breach of the statutory provision, putting the personal liberty, and the property of the citizen in jeopardy, the court may intervene to protect the personal, and property rights of the citizens.
Therefore, the Court viewed that the prayer for the transfer of investigation needed to be acceded to for the proper investigation of the crime and ensure complete justice. Hence, the case was transferred to the Crime Investigation Department, State of Maharashtra (“CID”), with immediate effect.
The Court directed Additional Director General of Police, State CID to appoint an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or above, to investigate the crime. The Court also emphasised that the new IO thereof appointed by the CID shall consider the observations and orders of the Trial Court and the single-Judge Bench, and of the instant Court. The incoming IO was also directed to determine the role of another alleged by the Petitioners to be an accused.
Lastly, the Court clarified that the new IO could reassess the entire evidence on record, without any influence of the already submitted reports by the previous IOs.
[Jaydeep Dilip Taware v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2021, decided on 11-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice AS Gadkari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, Rupesh Zade, Priyanka Gupta, Advocates
For the respondents: MS Mohite, Senior Advocate, Nilesh Wable, Umesh Mankapure, Sumet Khaire, Advocates, JP Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .