M. Kannan and A. Siva vs Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police

G. Rajasuria, J.—These petitions have been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to entrust the investigation in connection with crime Nos. 318 and 319 of 2009 on the file of the 4th Respondent, which were taken on file in P.R.C. Nos. 43 and 48 of 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, to a competent officer of the CBCID for reinvestigation under the supervision of an I.P.S. Officer.

Heard both sides.

The summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

The police registered the case in crime No. 318 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 307 I.P.C., consequent upon the complaint lodged by one Arumugam to the effect that one Palani was murdered and the defacto complainant and others were injured. The police registered another case in crime No. 319 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 307 I.P.C., on the complaint lodged by one Veeranan, on the ground that the injured Siva inflicted injuries on several persons. One and the same Officer investigated into both the crimes and laid the charge sheets in both the matters treating as though both the cases are separate from each other.

Crl.O.P. No. 3035 of 2010 has been filed by one Kannan, the brother of the deceased Palani, expressing his grievance that the investigation has not been properly done in the matter, because several accused persons participated in the matter were left out due to political influence. According to him, the police laid the charge sheet as against only 4 persons viz., Selvam, Duraipandi, Kallanai and Ezhuveetukkaran and they left as many as the following 11 persons:

Rajendran, 2. Maranattan, 3. Azhagar, 4. Kumar, 5. Lakshmanan, 6. Sankar, 7. Arunachalam, 8. Ayyavoo, 9. Veeriah, 10. Nondi @ Andi and 11. Petchimuthu.

Further, unless impartial investigation is undertaken, the said 11 persons cannot be proceeded against legally by citing them as accused in this case.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners inviting the attention of this Court to the averments in Crl.O.P. No. 3036 of 2010 would develop his argument that in the earlier case, in crime No. 318 of 2009, Siva is the injured person along with the deceased. However, the police, after conducting investigation did choose to lay the charge sheet in the subsequent crime No. 319 of 2010 as though Siva, after sustaining such injury in the previous case, went to the opponents'' house and indulged in perpetrating criminal offences including the act of attacking the house of the defacto complainant herein, which according to the Petitioner was impossible. As such, according to the learned Counsel, further investigation in that case is required.

Whereas, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would oppose the prayer of the Petitioner in both the petitions by pointing out that the investigation has been conducted properly and both the cases are different as they took place at different point of time and appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly, evidence was gathered by the investigating officer and the charge sheets were filed warranting no interference by this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure

Be that as it may, the laws have to be strictly applied. I recollect and hark back to the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:

(i) Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. v. State of Sikkim and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 878.

(ii) Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 1006.

A Mere perusal of those decisions would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that this Court, while exercising its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., should not embark on analysing the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. It is the lower Court which is seized of the matter at the appropriate stage, should consider the evidence.

Now, so far, the case in crime No. 318 of 2009 is concerned, it is pending before the Judicial Magistrate concerned in P.R.C. No. 43 of 2009. In such a case, it is for the defacto complainant to file necessary application u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C to seek for further reinvestigation setting out his grievances as found in the criminal original petition, whereupon, the learned Judicial Magistrate is expected to consider keeping in mind the following decisions:

(i) Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra, .

(ii) H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), .

(iii) Tula Ram and Others Vs. Kishore Singh, .

(iv) Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration), .

(v) Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 801.

(vi) Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. v. State of Sikkim and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 878

(vii) Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 1006. As such, the Judicial Magistrate has to consider the matter in an unbiased manner as to whether further investigation is required in this case in Cr. No. 318 of 2009 (P.R.C. No. 43 of 2009).

10 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would further raise a doubt as to whether the Judicial Magistrate would have the power to transfer the case to CBCID for further investigation. I would like to point out that it is quite obvious and axiomatic that if the learned Judicial Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that in the said cited case further investigation is required, then he at his discretion could order for transferring the case to CBCID for further investigation of the matter.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3036 of 2010 would submit that the said Siva happened to be the injured in the earlier case could not have committed the offence as found set out in the case in crime No. 319 of 2010 and the learned Judicial Magistrate should also order for further investigation in that case as it is a false case in toto, but the police in order to please the higher officials, simply laid the charge sheet.

I would like to point out that since Siva happened to be the accused in crime No. 319 of 2009, he cannot straight away ask for further investigation, but one point I would like to high light that further investigation in the connected crime number referred to supra, would have a repercussion in this case also. I would like to point out that an accused in a P.R.C. case can ask for dropping action even at the time of committal proceedings.

At this stage, I would like to point out that even a Judicial Magistrate while dealing P.R.C. has got a right to refrain from committing the case, if he finds that it is not worthy of being committed to the Courts of Sessions. I would like to point out incidentally that under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974, committal of the accused is not contemplated but only the committal of the case is contemplated. If the Judicial Magistrate finds that there is no case at all, he is also having the judicial power to refrain from committing the case and accordingly, dismiss the P.R.C.

Be that as it may, the accused in P.R.C. No. 49 of 2010 is also having the opportunity to pay for discharge after the case is committed to Sessions Court. Within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the defacto complainant is at liberty to file a petition u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned and whereupon, the learned Magistrate shall deal with it as per law within a period of two months thereon.

With the above observations and directions, both the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. The learned Magistrate