AZIJA BEGUM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 12-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 195 
AZIJA BEGUM 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012) 
JANUARY 12, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s.173 (8) - Further investigation in a murder case - Held: c 
When the Magistrate himself had expressed serious 
reservations about the investigation and had directed further 
investigation, it was expected of the High Court to look into 
the matter with greater care and caution - Additional Director 
.of Police, State CID, directed to order a proper investigation 
0 
in the matter by deputing a senior officer and furnish a report 
to trial court. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 14 - Held: Every citizen has a right to get his or her E 
complaint properly investigated - The issue is akin to ensuring 
equal access to justice. 
In a murder case, the wife of the deceased lodged an 
FIR implicating the two sons of the appellant The case 
of the appellant was that, prior to that, she herself had 
F 
lodged an FIR about missing of the deceased. She filed 
a petition uls 173(8) CrPC before the Magistrate 
whereupon a further investigation was directed. The 
appellant approached the High Court stating that when 
the Magistrate prima facie was not satisfied with the G 
investigation, further investigation should have been 
handed over to some other agency. The High Court 
disposed of the petition giving liberty -to the complainant 
195 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A to bring some more witnesses which he felt necessary, 
to the investigator. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Every citizen has a right to get his or her 
B complaint properly investigated. This is a question of 
equal protection of laws and is covered by the guarantee 
under Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue is akin to 
ensuring an equal access to justice. [para 13) [199-F-G] 
c 
1.2. In the instant case, the order of the High Court 
is very cryptic. It has not looked into the material facts of 
the case. It was expected of the High Court to look into 
the matter with greater care and caution, as a very serious 
offence had taken place followed by an investigation in 
0 respect of which the Magistrate himself had expressed 
serious reservations but failed to give proper direction. 
[para 11) [199-C-D] 
1.3. The Additional Director General of Police, State 
CID is directed to order a proper investigation in the 
E matter by deputing a senior officer from his organization 
to undertake a thorou,gh investigation and examine in 
detail the facts and circumstances of the case and then 
furnish a report to the trial court. [para 14) [200-8-C] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
G 
H 
No. 126 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2011 of the 
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition 
No. 356 of 2010. 
Uday B. Dube for the Appellant. 
Shankar Chillarge and Asha Gopalan Nair for the 
Respondents. 
.,C..ZIJA BEGUM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 197 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel forthe parties. 
2. Leave granted. 
A 
3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a rather 
B 
cryptic order of the High court by which the High Court, with 
respect, disposed of a petition under Article 227 of the 
Constitution without adverting to the questions involved. 
4. The material facts of the case which are necessary for c 
us to consider for the purpose of disposal of the issues are that 
one lmran S/o Anwar Khan was found murdered under 
mysterious circumstances. His dead body was found on 22nd 
February, 2009 at the entrance of the Government hospital. 
Prior to that lmran was found missing and the appellant herein 
D 
went to the police station to lodge her First Information Report 
over that but the police sent the appellant back after recording 
a mere 'missing report'. Even though at that point of time, the 
appellant was said to have informed the police that lmran was 
allegedly kidnapped by one ljani Khan, but, the police recorded 
E 
a 'missing' report only. 
5. After that as the appellant came to know that the dead 
body of lmran was lying near the entry of the Government 
hospital, she immediately went to the police station again and 
F 
informed the police of this fact also. According to the 
appellant's version, the police, instead of recording her 
statement and registering an F.1.R. passed on the said 
information to one 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.