LexSUSHILA DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 379 SUSHILA DEVI A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010 etc.) IN Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008 8 SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Investigation - Monitoring of - By Supreme Court - Investigation by CBI under the monitoring of Supreme Court c - Continuance of monitoring pleaded even after charge-sheet was filed and trial commenced - Held: Monitoring is not permissible after the investigation is complete and charge- D sheet filed. The question for consideration in the present cases was whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, even after the investigation is complete.'and E charge-sheet is filed. Disposing of the applications, the Court HELD: The monitoring of a case is continued till the investigation continues, but when the investigating F agency, which is appointed by the court, completes the investigation, files a charge-sheet and takes steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law before a competent court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to keep on monitoring the trial which is continuing G before a competent court. In the present case, since the investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring 379 H 380 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A of the case, which is in the domain of the competent court. [Paras 14 and 15] (391-H; 392-A-C] Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1998 (1) SCC 226: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Union of India vs. Sushi/ Kumar Modi B 1998 (8) SCC 661; M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India 2007 (1) SCC 11 O: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683; Jakia Nasim Ahesan vs. State of Gujarat 2011 (12) SCC 302: 2011 (11) SCR 365 - relied on. National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat C and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 767: 2009 (7) SCR 236; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 2012 (3) SCC 104; Raj iv La/an Singh "La/an" (8) vs. Union of India 2006 (6) sec 613: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 - cited. D E F G H Case Law Reference: 2009 (7) SCR 236 cited Para 4 2012 (3) sec 104 cited Para 4 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 cited Para 7 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 relied on Para 9 1998 (8) sec 661 relied on Para 10 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683 relied on Para 11 2011 (11) SCR 365 relied on Para 12 . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010 WITH Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17950 of 2011 AND Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 15638 of 2012 IN SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 381 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010 A IN Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2007 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBC RM No. 1015 of 2007. H.P. Raval, ASG, R.P. Bhat, P.S. Patwalia, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, S.K. Sinha, Seema Kashyap, Amit Lubhaya, Milind Kumar, Rajiv Nanda, T.A. ·Khan, Shriniwas Khalap, B • Anando Mukherjee, Palash Kanwar, Divya Anand, B.V. c Balramdas, Abhishek Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rakesh Dahiya, Gagan Deep Sharma, Preeti Singh for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. These applications D have been filed by the parties praying for monitoring of the matter in question, on one hand and the other parties seek that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, it is not necessary to continue with the monitoring of the matter in question which is pending before the Criminal Court for D adjudication. 2. Therefore, the sole question as it appears to be germane at this stage in the matter is: whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as directed earlier, even E after filing of the charge-sheet. 3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: a) In January, 2006, the Rajasthan Police came up with a list of most-wanted criminals of Rajasthan which included the F name of Dara Singh, the deceased husband of the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3212/2008. An award of Rs.25,000/- was declared on his head and on October 23, 2006 , it appears that he was killed in an encounter as would be evidenced from the subsequent FIR No. 396/2006 dated G 382 SUPREME COU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.