LexVIRENDER PRASAD SINGH versus RAJESH BHARDWAJ & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 10 S.C.R. 88 VIRENDER PRASAD SINGH v. RAJ ESH BHARDWAJ & ORS.· (Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2010) AUGUST 16, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Accused charge sheeted for. offences punishable u/s. 302, 201 and C 120-B /PC - Petition uls. 482 seeking re-investigation of matter by another agency - Direction by High Court for re- examination of the completed investigation by officer of the rank of Director General of Police - On appeal, held: The Court has to decide the question of fairness of investigation D - Charge sheet was already filed and nothing was shown suggesting that there was a necessity of any further investigation, additional investigation or investigation by some .other agency - Merely because there appeared to be no supervision of DIG level or JG level officer, High Court E could not have simply called for the opinion of DGP without recording any finding on any justification - Lack of bona tides on the part of accused should have put High Court on guard - Order of High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201 and 120-8. F Respondent no. 1 was facing charges for co111mission of offences punishable u/ss. 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. He filed a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking re- investigation of the matter by another agency. Meanwhile, the chargesheet was filed. The High Court directed re- G examin.ation of the completed investigation by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police and stayed the trial of the criminal case. Therefore, the appellant- complainant filed the instant appeal. H 88 VIRENDER PRASAD SINGH v. RAJESH BHARDWAJ 89 & ORS. Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1 The High Court took a very strange and extremely unusual course, whereby the counsel for the respondent No. 1-accused, who had filed the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, was B asked to give a proposal of three names of the police officers of the DGP rank for examining the records of the completed investigation, wherein even the charge sheet was already filed. Similar choice seems to have been given even to the counsel for the appellant-informant to c suggest some names. The appellant-informant (respondent before the High Court) did not choose to give any name, with the result that the High Court went on to select one IPS for assistance in the matter. [Paras 2) [93-B-D] D I 1.2 Firstly, there was no basis for the parties to have suggested the names of the police offi.cers of the DGP tank. Secondly, the opinion expressed by any such officer would not have been relevant in the decision as to whether the investigation was proper or not. The High Court went only on the consideration that there was no supervision report at the instance of the DIG of Police or Inspector General, Railway or DGP. Merely, because there appeared to be no supervision of the DIG level or IG level officer, the High Court could not have simply called for E F the opinion of DGP without recording any finding on any justification. No justification is seen whatsoever nor anything was shown. The stance of the High Court in issuing direction not to take any further step in the proceedings arising out of the case till 21.6.2010 is wholly G unwarranted. [Paras 13, 14, and 18) [101-G-H; 102-F; 105- C-D) 1.3 The charge sheet had already been filed. It was not necessary for the High Court to seek opinion of the H 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A DGP unless the High Court had examined the charge sheet, and recorded its findings that the investigation was not properly conducted or it required further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The High Court did not even look into the charge sheet nor did it examine the same. B Nothing was shown before this Court or before the High Court suggesting that there was a necessity of any further investigation, additional investigation or investigation by some other agency. [Paras 15 and 18) [103-G-H; 105-B] c 1.4 The High Court did not even consider the question of its own jurisdiction in the matter by conveniently observing that it is a matter which is to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the case. Therefore, it is clear that the High Court did not apply its 0 mind also and pushed the matter upto 21.6.2010 for receiving the opinion from the DGP. The same was neither . permissible nor warranted. (Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.