Ramendra Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of parties matter is finally heard. By filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a direction for respondent No. 2 to act in consonance with Annexure P/9. A direction is prayed for, for respondent No. 5 to conduct investigation as per Annexure P/9.

Shri Bhadoriya by relying on Annexure P/9 dated 23-08-2012 contended that the police headquarter (Investigation Department) directed the zonal office to conduct the investigation in detail and provide progress report. He submits that the investigation has not been conducted in proper manner and as desired by the investigation wing. He relied on 2011 (1) CCSC 385 (SC) {Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others}, Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), } and Smt. Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, to bolster the submission that the investigating authority is required to conduct the investigation in free and fair manner. Right of citizen flows from Article 21 of Constitution needs to be protected. The investigation must be fair and should be in a manner to ensure that the investigating agency is not acting as prosecutor but acting in search of truth.

Per contra, Ms. Patankar learned Government Advocate opposed the relief of petition and submits that the investigation is being conducted in accordance with law and at this stage no interference is warranted. She submits that petitioner cannot decide as to in which manner the investigation should be conducted.

Annexure P/9 is a communication between two officers of police department. Respondents in their interim reply have contended that Annexure P/9 was issued on an application submitted by one Man Singh S/o. Kalyan Singh R/o. Girgaon District Gwalior. Man Singh is brother of present petitioner. During investigation all the relevant material were taken into consideration and final report is submitted on 15-03-2013 (Annexure R/1). It is contended that the allegations are prima facie established against the petitioner in the aforesaid crime and in order to delay the proceedings he has filed this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is settled in law that investigation is a statutory obligation and duty of the police. The Courts are normally not required to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner investigation needs to proceed. The Apex Court took this view in catena of judgments in M.C. Abraham and Another, A.K. Dhote and J.F. Salve and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . The same view is taken by Supreme Court in D. Venkatasubramaniam and Others Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and Another, In Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, , the Apex Court opined that where the serious irregularities in investigation had taken place Court may direct further investigation but Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in the matter of investigation. The investigation is statutory right of investigating agency and normally no interference be made.

In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is clear that this Court cannot direct the investigating agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner as per the desire of petitioner.

The judgment cited by Shri Bhadoriya petitioner''s learned counsel are of no assistance to him. As per Annexure R/1, it appears that police is proceeding in accordance with law. The internal correspondence between two police authorities does not give any cause of action or grievance to the petitioner. Writ petition cannot be maintained to compel one authority to follow the executive order of superior authority. This view is taken by Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Jayamma and Others Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan Dist., Hassan and Others, which reads as under: If a subordinate authority in the Government does not act in terms of the direction or instruction issued by the superior authority, it is not for the Court to compel that subordinate authority to comply with the instruction or direction issued by the superior authority, if it is not otherwise governed by a statutory procedure. Court is not the executing forum of the instruction issued by the Government to its subordinates.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I find no reason to interfere in the matter. Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.