THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus FAROOK MOHAMMED KASIM MAPKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 30-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 399 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
FAROOK MOHAMMED KASIM MAPKAR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2010) 
JULY 30, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 32, 226 - Riots in Mumbai - Hari Masjid incident 
- Indiscriminate firing by police officials - Writ petition filecf 
in High Court in 2007 - Seeking direction to take action 
against the_police officials involved - Two writ petitions came 
to be filed in Supreme Court subsequently by two NGOs after 
the report of Srikrishna Commission which was constituted to 
inquire into the riots - Disposal of writ petition filed under 
Article 226 by High Court - Whether Supreme Court was 
seized of the matter in issue, by entertaining the two writ 
petitions under Article 32 and High Court erred in disposing 
of the writ petition - Held: No - Writ petition was filed in High 
Court prior to filing of 2 writ petitions in Supreme Court - There 
was no order by Supreme Court prohibiting the High Court 
from entertaining writ petition or proceeding further, in the 
case - Both the petitions under Article 32 were pending when 
the High Court disposed of the writ petition. 
Article 226 - Riots in Mumbai - Indiscriminate firing by 
police officials - Investigation entrusted by State Government 
to Special Task Force - Writ petition seeking direction for 
entrusting investigation of the case to independent and 
special agency - High Court entrusting investigation to CBI 
- Propriety of - Held: There is no doubt that any person 
aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police has 
adequate remedies provided under the Code· and it is for such 
399 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A person to seek relief with the aid of the provisions of the Code 
- However, in the instant case, Commission constituted to 
inquire into the riots gave report that some of the police 
officials did commit serious offence and the State Police did 
not examine the injured witnesses available at the spot - The 
8 instant case being an "extraordinary case", High Court was 
justified in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction for entrusting 
the investigation to CBI - Such direction by High Court without 
the consent of the State, neither impinge upon the federal 
structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of 
C separation of power and would be valid in law - Being the 
protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, Supreme Court and 
the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but 
a/so an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, 
guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of the 
Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly - Since the 
D incident related to 1993 and the CBI has already examined 
several persons, the CBI is directed to continue and complete 
the investigation into the incident and file a final report to the 
Court concerned within a period of 6 months -
Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Investigation - Administrative law 
E - Doctrine of separation of powers. 
Communal riots occurred in various parts of the 
country including Bombay (now 'Mumbai') after the 
incident of demolition of Babri Masjid on 6.12.1992. On 
F 10.1.1993, respondent no.2, the police official received a 
message that a mob of 2000 to 2500 people armed with 
deadly weapons was resorting to rioting and arson near 
Hari Masjid, Bombay. Respondent no.2 rushed to the site 
and found that the mob had become violent and was 
G destroying vehicles and other properties and setting fire 
to the sium colonies in the nearby areas. The Deputy 
Commissioner of Police (DCP) also arrived at the site and 
tried to control the mob in order to restore peace, but the 
mob started attacking the police by resorting to firing 
H from the site of Hari Masjid. The DCP ordered respondent 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. FAROOK 
401 
MOHAMMED KASIM MAPKAR 
no.2 to open fire. Respondent no.2 and his staff in 
compliance with the order of the DCP, opened fired 
which resulted in the death of six persons. An FIR was 
lodged against 50 accused persons and about 2000-2400 
unknown wanted accused persons. Respondent no.1 
was specifically named in the FIR. After investigation and 
filing of the charge sheet, the trial of six accused persons 
and respondent no.1. was separated. The trial court 
acquitted 22 accused persons. 
On 5.8.2006, respondent no.1 filed a complaint and 
sought registration of FIR against resp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.