LexSARVSHEEL MAGO versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 357 -~ SARVSHEEL MAGO A v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2008) MARCH 25, 2008 B ~ [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Various litigations between private parties and complainant on account of dispute ~ Private c parties conniving with police officer and trying to falsely implicate complainant for possessing contraband substances - Complainant seeking registration of criminal cases against police officer and private parties as a/so investigation - Refusal by High Court - On appeal held: Case made out for D ,, independent and unbiased investigation into the offence on basis of the Inquiry Report- Officer of the rank of DIG directed to further investigate into the complaint - Referring the matter to CBI for investigation not required - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 341, 342, 211 and 120-B - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic E Substances Act, 1985 - s. 58. Appellant's daughter was married with the son of respondent no~ 6. There was a dispute among the parties. Appellant also had strained relations with respondent no. 5. Criminal cases were registered against the appellant F -~ and his family members however, they all were acquitted. It is alleged that respondent no. 5 and 6 in connivance with respondent no. 4-Police officer tried to falsely implicate the appellant for possessing contraband drugs . . Search was carried out on three occasions but nothing G incriminating was found. Appellant did not succeed in registering a criminal case against the respondents. .... "' Thereafter, appellant filed a petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register criminal case ulss. 341, 342 and 211 357 H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A IPC read with s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act read with s.120-B IPC against respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Thi~ High Court did not issue any directions for registration of the criminal cases against the appellant. The appellant filed SLP before this Court. B Notices were issued on SLP and also notices were issued to CBI. This Court passed an order that an officer of the rank of DIG under supervision of DGP would make an independent investigation as to whether any attempt had been made by respondent no. 4 to harass appellant by c trying to lodge cases under NDPS Act. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: After goin!g through the Inquiry Report made by the DIG at the instance of the DGP which was in the 0 nature of investigation, it is found that there is a case for investigation into the offence. Therefore, further investigation is directied by the officer of the rank of DIG into the complaint made by the appellant. However, at this stage, there is no neciessity of referring the matter to CBI as the DIG has so far conducted unbiased and E independent investigation in the matter. An independent and unbiased investigation shall be done on the basis of the complaint against all concerned including respondents as also such others who had any role to play in the incident dated 8.8.2004. Further action, if necessary, F shall be taken against all such persons who have been found to have a hand in the harassment of the appellant, whose' car was constantly searched on as many as three occasions without anything objectionable being found. The liberty is given to the appellant to approach this Court G again in case the need is felt. [Paras 11 and 12] [365-B, C, D, E, F, G; 366-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2008 , H From the final Judgment and order dated 9/9/2005 of the • SARVSHEEL MAGO v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 359 [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.] --( High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. A No. 44156-M/2004. Subodh Markandeya, Chitra Markandaya and R. Agrawal for the Appellant. - Vikas Singh, A.S.G., B.S. Mor, Nee raj Mor, Mahinder Singh B ~ Dahiya, Rajni Ohri, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, Kusum Singh, R.C. Kaushik, Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan and TV.George for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the High Court, whereby his petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was disposed of with certain directions. In his petition, the appellant had sought registration of criminal case against D 1' respondent nos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.