CHANDER BHAN SINGH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
CHANDER BHAN SINGH
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2019)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Revision –
Appellant-complainant filed a writ petition in 2002 seeking
registration of criminal case – His allegation was that his son was
wrongfully killed by the police – CBI filed a closure report –
Magistrate did not accept the closure report and took cognizance
against 13 police officers-accused – Accused and the Government
of NCT filed separate petitions under s.482, Cr.P.C. –  High Court
allowed the petitions and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the
point of cognizance and take a fresh decision on the closure report
filed by the CBI – Magistrate reheard the matter and accepted the
closure report – Appellant challenged the said order by way of
revision petition under s.397, Cr.P.C. – After keeping matter pending
for 2 years, High Court dismissed the revision petition of appellant
with liberty to approach Sessions Judge – Appeal before Supreme
Court – Held: This case took place long back in the year 2002 and
almost sixteen years have elapsed – It is ingrained in our criminal
justice system that speedy justice should be provided to the litigant
as a matter of a constitutional right – This is not  appropriate case
for this Court to decide on the question of law considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances involved – The question of law is
left open and order of the High Court in revision petition is set
aside and the case before the High Court is restored – High Court
to hear the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order thereafter
without any further delay – Delay/Laches – Revision.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
30 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Rev. P. No. 557 of 2012.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 256
256
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
K. K.  Rai, Sr. Adv., Tarkeshwar Nath, Chandrashekhar A.
Chakalabbi,  S. K. Pandey,  Anshul Rai, Mukesh Hooda, Rajiv Choudhary,
Onkar Nath, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Pramod Dubey, Vivek Jain, Ms.
Suchitra Kumbhat, P. K. Dubey,  Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ms. Supriya Juneja,
Aditya Singla, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Ms. M. Jaggi, Anoopam Prasad,
Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Santosh Kumar, P. K. Dey,  Rishabh
Jain, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Priya Puri, Ranjay Dubey, Ms.
Vineeta M., Adv. Ms. Ranjana Narayan, T. A. Khan, B. V. Balaram
Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal was filed against the impugned order dated
28.10.2014, passed by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the said Court
had dismissed the Revision Petition against the order rejecting the
cognizance, by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. It may be relevant to note the chequered history of this case
spanning almost sixteen years. On 17.01.2002, the Appellant/Complainant
filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 70/2002, before the Delhi High Court
against the State, Deputy Commissioner of Police and others seeking
registration of a criminal complaint. The Appellant/Complainant alleged
that his son had been wrongfully killed by the police
on   11.01.2002.    The     High      Court      of        Delhi,   vide order
dated 30.01.2002, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”)
to register a complaint and investigate. CBI registered a complaint being
RC No. 2(s)/2002/SIC-IV/ND under Sections 218, 302, 201 read with
34 of IPC.
4. The CBI, after completion of investigation, filed a Closure
Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Lt. Governor,
NCT Delhi did not find it to be a fit case to convey sanction for
prosecution. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, by order dated
06.08.2008, did not accept the Closure Report filed by the CBI, and on
considering the material before it, took cognizance against thirteen police
officers (“accused”). The accused were summoned, and the matter
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHANDER BHAN SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
5. Meanwhile, one of the accused filed Criminal Revision Petition
No. 8 of 2009 challenging the order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the
Magistrate, before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Criminal Revi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.