AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In view of inextricably connected issues involved in both the appeals by consent of the parties they were heard together and disposed of by this
common judgement.
Both the appeals are arising out of a common judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge in relation to two writ petitions challenging the sealing of
the restaurant and investigation initiated by the police station concerned on the basis of complaint alleged to have been forcefully extracted from
Saluja. The Learned Single Judge on being satisfied that the investigation was not fair and impartial directed the Criminal Investigation Department (in
short ‘CID’) to take over the investigation and allowed opening of the sealed premises.
This order is under challenge.
Ms. Saluja Motey is the focal point in this litigation. She is supported in her cause by Fulkumari Pasman her present employer.
In order to appreciate the order impugned and the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to briefly
narrate the facts.
Firstly, we discuss the facts of W.P.A.300 of 2019 filed by Fulkumari.
Fulkumari is the owner and runs a Restaurant cum Bar under the name and style of Golden Valley Restaurant situated at the heart of the city in
Jalpaiguri. The restaurant had the requisite licence under the West Bengal (Selection of New Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Liquor and
Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003. The said licence was initially renewed on 1st February, 2019 by the Excise Authority and was again granted
on 2nd August 2019 with a validity period until 31st March, 2020. It is alleged that under the license granted to the Restaurant the petitioner had
permission for professional entertainment and playing of music (vocal or instrumental) on the licensed premises. On July 16th, 2019 between 9:45 pm
and 10:15 pm, while the restaurant was open and doing business, a group of 100 policemen barged into the restaurant and arrested 13 performers
including Ms. Saluja Motey, as well as the staff of the restaurant and the customers present; about 72 persons in total. The persons who were taken to
the police station, particularly the customers, were subsequently released on bail. The license was re-issued to the restaurant on 2nd August, 2019,
almost 15 days after the incident of 16th July, 2019. The entry of police personnel and sealing of the premises has been questioned by the writ
petitioner. The writ petitioner contended that the Excise Authorities did not ever raised any objection regarding conduct of the business of the writ
petitioner and accordingly the police authorities did not have the power to enter the “Excise†premises and seal the said premises. It is alleged that
at the instance of a rival business man Goutam Das, who owns and runs a Bar cum Restaurant “Hotel De La Pritam†named after his son, barely
500 meters away from Golden Restaurant, Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspectorâ€"inâ€" Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri and Ms. Upasana
Gurung, Officerâ€"in-Charge, Women Police Station, Jalpaiguri, raided Golden Restaurant and illegally sealed the premises. Shri Das is the
Government Pleader at Jalpaiguri and he misused his official position and political clout to influence the local administration and police to commit such
sinister act. It is further alleged that the said police officers have coerced and forcefully compelled the female performers to lodge false complaints in
which the husband of the writ petitioner was implicated. However, subsequently the female performer, made a representation, stating that such
complaint was extracted forcefully. Fulkumari complained of atrocities and illegalities committed by the said police officers having been actuated by
extraneous reasons and trade rivalry.
The relevant provisions of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 authorises only the District Magistrate or the authorities mentioned under the Act having the
power to take any action in respect of cancellation or revocation of license. Moreover, the power of search and seizure under Section 102 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be in compliance with the requirement under sub-section (3) of S. 102 which requires the police officer to
“forthwith†report the seizure to the magistrate having jurisdiction. The police searched the premises of the restaurant three times, the last being
23rd July, 2019 and in view thereof, there was no necessity to continue with the sealing of the restaurant. It is not in the interest of the workers and
the staff of the restaurant. The writ petitioner accordingly prayed for de-sealing of the restaurant premises.
Saluja also filed a separate writ petition being W.P.A. 299 of 2019.
The facts in nutshell in her writ petition are that she is a professional singer and has been performing at various places including several renowned Bar
-cum â€"Restaurants for past several years. She started as a performer singer at Hotel De L’ Pritam in November 2015 and worked till February
2017. Subsequently she came to Kolkata and worked at different Bar -cum â€"Restaurants till February 2019 and thereafter returned to Jalpaiguri in
March 2019 and joined Golden Valley Restaurant. On 18th June, 2019 she joined Hotel De L’ Pritam for better exposure but subsequently on 30th
June, 2019 she returned to Golden Valley due to various reasons and to preserve her self-respect and dignity. It is alleged that as soon as she left
Hotel De L’ Pritam she was threatened with dire consequences by one Goutam Das, that is, the father of the owner of the restaurant. It is alleged
that Goutam Das claimed himself as Government Pleader having close connection with the police and administration and he can ruin her life and
career. Since Saluja did not pay any heed to such threat Goutam used his influence to convert the threat into reality and caused a raid on 16th July,
2019 at around 9.45-10 PM with approximately 50 police officials. During such raid around 100 persons including 13 female performers and several
staff of Golden Valley were arrested. During her short tenure at Hotel De L’ Pritam due to her performance as singer she became a major
clientele of the said hotel.
She is a homemaker and mother of a four year old child.
Since April, 2019 she has been performing at Golden Valley Restaurant cum Bar along with the other members of her band on regular basis excepting
for 12 days in June, 2019 upon compliance of all statutory norms and intimation to the Kotwali Police Station on monthly basis in terms of the Bengal
Excise Act, 1908 and Rules framed thereunder.
It is alleged that as soon as she left Hotel De L’ Pritam she was threatened with dire consequences by one Goutam Das the father of the owner
of the restaurant. It is alleged that Goutam Das claimed himself as Government Pleader having close connection with the police and administration and
threatened to ruin her life and career. Since Saluja did not pay any heed to such threat Goutam used his influence to convert the threat into reality and
forced a raid on 16th July, 2019 at around 9.45-10 PM of approximately 50 policemen. During such raid around 100 persons including 13 female
performers and several staff of Golden Valley were arrested.
After such raid all the female performers were taken to the Women Police Station, Jalpaiguri at around 10:30-11.00 pm. At the very outset, 5 (five)
female performers, including petitioner, were separated from the rest of the group and were taken to a separate room where the police officials
present therein, at the instance of Ms. Upasana Gurung, Officer-in-charge, Women P.S. and Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspector in Charge, Kotwali
P.S. started coercing them to lodge a complaint against Mr. Dharam Pasman, the husband of the owner of the Golden Valley Restaurant cum Bar.
The petitioner and other performers were coerced and threatened with dire consequences and were told that unless they lodge a complaint against
Mr. Dharam Pasman and the other staff of the Bar-cum-Restaurant, contending that they had been forced to indulge in immoral trafficking by them,
the police would not release them and they would be put behind the bars. The petitioner as well as other performers were also threatened that the
entire exercise had been undertaken at the behest of the higher officials of Police and unless they succumb and do as they were asked to, the
authorities will take steps prejudicial to the lives and livelihoods of their families.
Although none of the performers had the intention or reason to lodge such a false complaint, but after passing of substantial period of time and being
consistently threatened and coerced by the police officials present therein, your petitioner was compelled to put her signature on a paper, where
something was written in Bengali. Subsequently the petitioner has learnt that her other female colleagues were also forced to put their signature on
blank paper under extreme threat and coercion of Ms. Upasana Gurung, Officer-in-Charge, Women P.S. and Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspector in
Charge, Kotwali P.S.
The petitioner was forced to sign on a piece of paper, wherein something was already written in Bengali, although the petitioner cannot read or write
Bengali. Even the contents thereof were not read over and explained to her. Her signature was obtained by exercising force, under threat of arrest
and coercion. The petitioner was threatened that unless she put her signature on the said document written in Bengali, she as well as her family
members would be framed in false cases and she would also be arrested under the provisions of Immoral Traffic Act and further steps would be
taken by the police officials to ruin her life and livelihood.
Ultimately, on 18th purported safe custody petitioner learnt that July, 2019, the petitioner was released from the of the police Authorities. Upon her
release, the the entire exercise undertaken by the police authorities, commencing from 16th July, 2019 have been initiated on the basis of a purported
complaint allegedly lodged by your petitioner on 16th July, 2019 wherein it has been inter alia alleged that she was forced by the husband of the owner
of the Bar-cum-Restaurant Mr. Dharam Paswan and other staff members of the Bar-cum-Restaurant to spend nights with unknown persons and to
take part in flesh trade. The said written complaint was registered as Jalpaiguri Women P.S. FIR no. 81/19 dated 16th July, 2019 under Section
370/370A(2)/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The writ petitioner denied having lodged any such complaint at any point of time. Apparently, the
document on which her signature was forcefully obtained has been used illegally to fabricate stories and to hatch conspiracy. The purported letter
subsequently obtained alleged to have been written by her on 16th July, 2019, formed the basis of initiation of Women P.S. Case no. 81/19 dated 16th
July, 2019 u/s. 370/370A(2)/120B IPC against Sri Shiltu Baine, Dharam Pasman, and others. The contents and allegations contained in such false
complaint are utterly false.
The writ petitioner alleged that the police authorities have acted in connivance with the owners and associates of Hotel De L’ Pritam, wherein the
writ petitioner was earlier employed as a singer and her performance had attracted major clientele and large number of customers used to visit Hotel
De L’ Pritam, to listen to her singing. One Goutam Das, father of the owner of Hotel De L’ Pritam who is the Government Pleader of
Jalpaiguri as well as member of Bar Council of West Bengal, was furious when Saluja decided to leave the said hotel and threatened her with dire
consequences including threat to life and livelihood of Saluja and her family.
Ms. Upasana Gurung, Officer in Charge, Women P.S. Jalpaiguri and Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspector in Charge Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri, were
instrumental in coercing the petitioner to append her signature on a paper contents of which were written in Bengali, whereas she does not know
and/or understand Bengali script and neither can read or write in Bengali and as such is not aware of the contents written therein. She was under
extreme mental trauma and was also apprehensive to return to her residence. She was also being hounded by the police threatening to implicate her in
some other false cases. The police motivetedly and to malign her had also disclosed her identity in various audiovisual media causing irretrievable
damage to her reputations and stigmatized the reputation of her family.
Being aggrieved by such illegal and arbitrary acts of the police authorities, Saluja by her letter dated 20th July, 2019 made a representation/demand of
justice to the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the higher authorities/superior officers of the police authorities, inter alia, requesting them to enquire
into the matter and register cases against the culprits for such illegal and criminal activities as also to ensure her protection as her life and liberty is in
imminent danger. However, the said representation was never responded nor the grievance of Saluja was redressed. This inexplicable silence in effect
indulged the police officials attached with the Kotwali Police Station and Women Police Station and particularly, Ms. Upasana Gurung, Officer in-
Charge, Women P.S., Jalpaiguri and Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspector in Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri, and their men and agents to continue with
their illegal and unjustified acts and activities.
Subsequently, Saluja came to learn that on 22nd July, 2019 the police authorities took away the hard disc of the CCTV footage from the Golden Valley
Restaurant-cum-Bar.
Saluja contended that it is a clear case of police atrocity and a common person is being subjected to unnecessary and inhuman torture caused by the
police authorities due to some obvious illegal gain and/or interest. It is contended that in terms of provisions of Police Regulation of Bengal after
receiving the complaint the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 ought to have forwarded the same to the Learned District Magistrate for taking appropriate
proceedings.
She reiterated that she did not lodge any complaint against anyone, rather her signature was obtained by the police officials under threat and coercion
on a paper wherein something was written in Bengali. She had no clue as to what was written in the said paper as she does not understand
Bengali. Rather on the date of incident i.e. 16th July, 2019 the petitioner entered the Golden Valley Restaurant cum Bar at around 7.30 p.m. and did
not left the premises till she was taken away by the police authorities.
The actions of the police authorities in obtaining her signature on a paper written in Bengali without intimating her the contents thereof and thereby
using her name to frame some other persons is illegal and intolerable and such act is unbecoming of the police authorities.
A bare perusal of the copy of purported FIR lodged by the petitioner on 16th July, 2019 would show that it was lodged at 20.15 hours, whereas the
raid was conducted at the restaurant at around 22.15 hours, which means that in spite of having lodged a complaint with the police authorities the
petitioner went to the restaurant to be subjected to the same alleged physical and mental harassment, which is absurd.
Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate ably assisted by Mr. Anant Kumar Ghosh, Advocate has submitted that the action of the police
authorities are unpardonable and smacks illegality and vindictiveness. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to various provisions of CrPC and
submited that the procedure has been given a quiet burial. The CCTV footage has been sabotaged. The writ petitioners have been subjected to
intimidation and coercions by the police authorities at the instance of Goutam Das and his son Pritam who wield enormous power in the locality. Mr.
Ghosh submits that the order is innocuous as it had directed fair and free investigation by CID.
Per contra, the learned Advocate General submits that the power to investigate does not depend upon lodging of FIR as the police on the basis of
information received that a cognizable offence has taken place and has reason to suspect the commission of offence can investigate under Chapter 12
following the procedure prescribed therein. The Hon’ble Single Judge reprimanded the investigating agency merely on the pretext that the CCTV
footage of 16th July, 2019 of Kotwali Police Station was not available. Once the investigation process is set in motion, the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are sufficient to take care of all the exigencies. No sufficient cause was shown in the said Writ Petition for invoking the Writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
The CrPC is an exhaustive Code providing a complete mechanism to investigate into and try cases. It has provisions at each stage to correct errors,
failures of justice and abuse of process under the supervision and superintendence of the High Court. The Court can direct further investigation into
the matter. The CrPC, thus, provides for a corrective mechanism at each stage vis. (i) investigation; (ii) trial; (iii) appeal and (iv) revision. The learned
Advocate General has relied upon Popular Muthiash vs. State reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296 (paragraph 21) to argue that since the CrPC is an
exhaustive code interference of this stage of investigation is not desirable and should be avoided. The said paragraph is reproduced below:
“21. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides is an exhaustive Code providing a complete machinery to investigate and try cases, appeals against
the judgments. It has provisions at each stage to correct errors, failures of justice and abuse of process under the supervision and superintendence of
the High Court as would be evident from the following:
(i) The Court has the power to direct investigation in cognizable cases under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) A Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case himself under Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) When a charge sheet is filed, the court can refuse to accept the same and proceed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials
on record. The Court can direct further investigation into the matter
(iv) The Magistrate may treat a protest petition as a complaint and proceed to deal therewith in terms of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(v) Once the case is committed, the Sessions Judge may refer the matter to the High Court.
(vi) In the event, without taking any further evidence, it is found that while passing the order of commitment, the Magistrate has committed an error in
not referring the case of an accused or left out an accused after evidences are adduced, the court may proceed against a person who was not an
accused provided it appears from the evidences that he should be tried with the accused.
(vii) The revisional court during pendency of the trial may exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 in which case, it may direct further
inquiry in terms of Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(viii) The revisional powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court are pointed out in the Code separately; from a perusal whereof it would appear
that the High Court exercises larger power.
(ix) In the event of any conviction by a court of Sessions, an appeal there against would lie to the High Court. The appellate court exercises the power
laid down under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which event it may also take further direct evidences in terms of Section 391
thereof.
(x) The High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to correct errors of the courts below and pass such
orders as may be necessary to do justice to the parties and/ or to prevent the abuse of process of court.†(emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the impugned judgment and order proceeds on the basis that the police are using their connection with powerful/influential people for taking
action against the writ petitioner herein as well a the husband of the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 300 of 2019. In light of the fact that the “powerful
people†were not made party to the present proceeding, the allegations made against non-parties to the litigation should not have been taken note of
by the Hon’ble Single Judge. In this regard reliance was placed upon S.S.& Co. vs Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd.; (2008) 5 SCC 772 (paragraphs 30
to 33).
It is submitted that the interference of the Court or external agency should be avoided as no external agency can dictate the course of investigation in
a criminal case. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police. The court shall also not supervise investigation unless there are exceptional situation
to monitor an investigation. It is submitted that the investigation of offences is one of the important duties police has to perform with a view to unearth
the truth and to bring the offender to book. It is well settled that power of transferring investigation to other investigating agency must be exercised in
rare and exceptional cases and in the contingencies where the Court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties to instil confidence in
the public mind, or where investigation by the State Police lacks credibility and in this regard reliance is placed on Bimal Gurung v. Union of India;
(2018) 15 SCC 480 (Paragraph 29), which reads as follows:
“29. The law is thus well settled that power of transferring investigation to other investigating agency must be exercised in rare and exceptional
cases where the Court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the
State Police lacks credibility. Such power has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. In K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID
South Zone, Of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480, this Court has noted few circumstances where the Court could exercise its constitutional power to transfer
of investigation from State Police to CBI such as: (i) where high officials of State authorities are involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is against
the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, or (iii)where investigation prima facie is found to be
tainted/biased.â€
The learned Advocate General has relied upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Director General of Police v
Gopal Kumar Agarwal; 2020 SCCOnline Cal 755 (MAT 318 of 2019 and MAT 353 of 2019) paragraph 70 for the said principle which reads:
“70. The essence of the case of the writ petitioner is that the State Police authorities are biased in favour of the accused person and there is malice
on their part against the writ petitioner/de-facto complainant. No particulars or plausible reason for the State Police to be biased in favour of the
accused person has been indicated in the writ petition. A bald assertion of bias is not sufficient. It is a serious allegation and must be supported by
tangible evidence. The mere allegation that defective investigation is indicative of such bias begs the question. Defective investigation, may be due to
error of judgment and infirmities or loopholes in the process of investigation, per se would not unfailingly indicate any unholy entente between the
investigating agency and the accused person. As many as five Investigating Officers were involved in the present case. It is highly unlikely that all five
were biased against the writ petitioner and in favour of the accused person. The writ petitioner has not attributed bias to any particular Investigating
Officer by identifying him. An omnibus statement that the entire State Police administration is biased in favour of the accused person and against the
writ petitioner is too far a cry and not acceptable.â€
In order to cover the widespread investigation that was needed in the instant matter an investigative Team was constituted by a proposal dated 17th
August, 2019 consisting of PSI-s from Kotwali PS, Rajganj PS, Women PS, Jalpaiguri, OC Women PS, Jalpaiguri and LSI of Women PS, Jalpaiguri.
However, such constitution of Team was not placed before the Hon’ble Single Judge, but was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Division
Bench during admission of appeal and stay of the operation of impugned judgment and order, partially.
In view of the fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri has constituted a special investigating team (SIT) consisting of six officers
from three police stations, the order directing investigation by the CID may be set aside.
It is submitted that the formation of SIT by an order dated 17th August, 2019 was inadvertently not brought to the attention of the learned Single Judge
before the judgment was pronounced. The SIT has concluded the investigation and has prepared charge-sheet which however could not be filed in
view of the order of the learned Single Judge directing investigation by CID. It is submitted that the CrPC provides adequate checks and balances on
the power exercised by the police officer and the accused or the offender is not remediless in the event it is found that there are defects and lapses in
the investigation. The learned Advocate General submits that after the filing of the Charge sheet the accused can always challenge the said charge
sheet and can even demonstrate at the trial that there are glaring defects and discrepancies in the charge sheet. It is preposterous at this stage to
suggest that the accused would not face a fair trial. The learned Advocate General submits that the North Bengal has porous borders and human
trafficking is a serious problem. The main culprit namely, Dharam Paswan is the king pin of the prostitution racket carried on in the Golden Valley
Restaurant under the garb of professional entertainment, however, he got a statutory bail after 90 days of his arrest since the charge sheet could not
be filed in view of the pendency of the appeal. However, steps have been taken for his re-arrest before the appropriate forum.
In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties the issue which is primordial should a victim would be asked to wait in spite of serious
apprehension of a fair and honest investigation being established and denied remedy in this extraordinary jurisdiction simply because the writ
petitioners could raise objections at the appropriate stage of the trial.
In deciding the said issue we may refer to few provisions of CrPC on which the learned Counsel for the parties had made submissions.
Chapter 12 of the CrPC 1973 deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. The principal object of the First Information Report
from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The FIR is never
treated as a substantive piece of evidence. The reasonableness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for the registration of the
case under Section 154 of the CrPC
The Officer-in-Charge of a police station in exercise of his power under Section 156 of the CrPC can investigate any cognizable case without the
order of the Magistrate on the basis of information received or otherwise. The procedure for investigation to be followed by a police officer is stated in
Section 157. The police officer if, from information received or otherwise, has reason to suspect a commission of offence which he is empowered
under Section 156 to investigate, shall forthwith send a report to a Magistrate to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall
proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the
offender provided. The officer-in-charge of the police station if feels that the person against whom the commission of offence is alleged is not serious
in nature he need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot and if it appears to the officer in charge
there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation he would not investigate the case. In each of the aforesaid cases the officer in charge
would be required to state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with proviso to Section 157(1). The police officer making an investigation
can examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, however, such statements if reduced to
writing shall not be signed by the person making it nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary, or otherwise or any
part of such record used for any purpose save as provided in the Code.
The Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC can record any confessional statement made to him in the course of investigation under Chapter 12 or
at any time afterwards before the commencement of the enquiry or trial.
The apprehension of getting fair and impartial enquiry or trial was required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjecture and surmise. In
the instant case there is a serious allegation that arrest had been manipulated, actuated, orchestrated and motivated as a result of business rivalry
between the Golden Valley Restaurant and another restaurant in the vicinity namely, Hotel Dela Pritam which is a Bar-cum-Restaurant owned and
named after the son of Mr. Goutam Das who is holding the post of Government pleader of the Jalpaiguri District. The allegations are that the police
are acting at the behest of influential persons including Mr. Das and the action complained of is a direct result of Ms. Saluja Motey leaving Hotel Dela
Pritam to perform in Golden Valley Restaurant. Moreover, it appears that the police acted on the basis of the FIR and not suo motu and not at any
time before 16th July, 2009 when the FIR was lodged. The second FIR has been disputed by Ms. Saluja Motey on the ground that she was compelled
to sign on a blank piece of paper before the respondent no.8 and 9 namely, inspector in charge of Kotwali Police Station and officer in charge, women
police station, Jalpaiguri at the Kotwali
Police Station on 26th July, 2019. It has been claimed on behalf of Ms. Motey that she could not have made the FIR on her own since she is not
conversant either in Bengali the language in which the FIR was written or in English the language in which, complaint was made on 29th July, 2019 to
the police authorities against the atrocities committed by the respondent no.8 and 9. The documents on record from the National Informatics Centre
(NIC) stating that no CCTV footage found to have been preserved at the Kotwali Police Station recording events which took place on 26th July, 2019
when the purported FIR was lodged by Saluja Motey has not been denied. There is also no document on record showing the basis of the police action
in Golden Restaurant on and from 16th July, 2019, the only reason which can be attributed to such an action are thus stated in the order dated 4th
September, 2019 passed by the CJM, Jalpaiguri that the premises were used for activities prohibited under the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act
and the stand of the police that incriminating articles were recovered from the said restaurant soon after the restaurant was sealed on 26th July, 2019.
In D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal reported at 2015 (8) SCC 744 the requirement to have CCTV cameras installed in police stations and prisons
have been highlighted in paragraph 32, 33 and 38.6. The observations made in paragraphs are:
“32. As regards installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and prisons, with a view to checking human rights abuse, it is heartening to note
that all the States have in their affidavits supported the recommendation for installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and prisons. In some of
the States, steps appear to have already been initiated in that direction. In the State of Bihar, CCTV cameras in all prisons and in 44 police stations in
the State have already been installed. So also the State of Tamil Nadu plans to equip all police stations with CCTV cameras. The State of Haryana
has stated that CCTV cameras should be installed in all police stations, especially, at the entrance and in the lockups. The Union Territories of
Andaman & Nicobar and Puducherry have also installed CCTV cameras in most of the police stations. Some other States also appear to be taking
steps to do so. Some of the States have, however, remained silent and non-committal on the issue.
We do not for the present consider it necessary to issue a direction for installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations. We are of the opinion
that the matter cannot be left to be considered by the State Governments concerned, having regard to the fact that several other State Governments
have already taken action in that direction which we consider is commendable. All that we need say is that the State Governments may consider
taking an appropriate decision in this regard, and appropriate action wherever it is considered feasible to install CCTV cameras in police stations.
Some of these police stations may be located in sensitive areas prone to human rights violation. The States would, therefore, do well in identifying such
police stations in the first instance and providing the necessary safeguard against such violation by installing CCTV cameras in the same. The process
can be completed in a phased manner depending upon the nature and the extent of violation and the experience of the past.
38.6. The State Governments shall also consider installation of CCTV cameras in police stations in a phased manner depending upon the incidents of
human rights violations reported in such stations.â€
In a recent review of the use of videography in the crime scene during investigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit
Singh & Ors. reported in 2021(1) SCC 184 reiterated the need for installation of CCTV Cameras in police station to ensure credible recording of
evidence and safe guarding human rights inside police stations. The D.K. Basu (supra) guidelines in the instant case is sadly followed more in breach
than in obedience.
While the investigation should not be thwarted this is a proper case for the CID to investigate the matter as directed by the learned Single Judge since
it appears that one of the IOs appointed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, is respondent no.9 in the writ petition filed by Phool Kumari Paswan
and against whom serious allegations have been made by Saluja Motey and Phul Kumari. Moreover, we feel that the circumstances justify
appointment of a superior officer which has not been done by the Deputy Superindent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The investigating officers engaged are all
from Jalpaiguri. The apprehension expressed by the writ petitioners in their respective writ applications that the local police authorities can be
influenced by Goutam Das cannot also be disregarded and countenanced.
A fair trial to an accused is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the investigation itself is unfair to require the accused to
demonstrate prejudice will be fraught with danger vesting arbitrary powers in the police which may well lead to false implication also. Investigation in
a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance on the part of the accused. In a
criminal prosecution, there is an obligation cast on the investigator not only to be fair, judicious and just during investigation, but also that the
investigation on the face of it must appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine apprehension in
the mind of an accused and not merely fanciful, that the investigation was not fair. The state felt the necessity to appoint SIT during pendency of the
writ petition which speaks loud of appropriate and justified noises being made by the writ petitioners for an investigation by independent agencies. One
would have expected formation of an investigating team comprising of officers other than Jalpaiguri. It appears that the SIT was formed on17th
August 2019 and the judgement was delivered on 11th September 2019. Unfortunately it comprises of police officers of the concerned District and of
the investigating officers, namely respondent no.9, is from the concerned police station against whom serious charges has been made by both the writ
petitioners. This was known to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri at the time of formation of SIT. The involvement of the said police
officer in the investigation can raise serious doubts with regard to his fairness and impartiality and genuine apprehension that he is likely to influence
the investigation. It also raises serious doubts about the conduct of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The composition of the SIT taken
along with the other glaring breach of procedure established by law and infringement of constitutional right of a free and fair investigation and having
regard to the fact that the investigation so far conducted is prima facie tainted and/or biased and raises serious doubts about credibility of the
investigating officer it is necessary in order to instil confidence in the public mind and to ensure a fair, honest and complete investigation to set aside
the SIT constituted on 17th August, 2019. The said formation is an eye wash as honesty in the formation would require appointment of a superior
officer and other members of the SIT from adjoining districts.
The State Police Chief can appoint any superior officer who in his opinion would be competent and fit to investigate a particular case keeping in view
the circumstances thereof. In the light of the facts of the given case that would be determinative of the appointment to be made, the State Police chief,
in exercise of power under Section 36 of the CrPC can appoint a superior officer beyond the limits of local jurisdiction. (State of Kerala vs. P.B.
Sourabhan & Ors. reported at (2016) 4 SCC 102). This power was not exercised.
The above facts can legitimately create an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners qua fair and impartial investigation.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees fair trial. A fair trial is impossible if there is no fair investigation. In order to be a fair investigation, the
investigation must be conducted thoroughly, without bias or prejudice, without any malafide and ulterior motive and every fact, emerging and surfacing
during the course of investigation and, eventually, on the trial, must be faithfully recorded contemporaneously by the Investigating Officer at the time
of investigation. A manipulated investigation or an investigation, which is actuated by extraneous consideration and motivated, cannot lead to a fair
trial. It is, therefore, necessary that the Courts should be vigilant, for it is as much the duty of the court commencing from the level of the Judicial
Magistrates to ensure that an investigation conducted is proper and fair as it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to ensure that an investigation
conducted is proper and fair. A fair investigation would mean a complete investigation and must embrace all aspects of an accusation, be it in favour
of the accused or against him. Article 21 casts an obligation on the state to ensure a fair trial for which the state must ensure fair investigation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narmada Bai v State Of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2011 (5) SCC 79 has reiterated that investigation must be
impartial and fair.
A trial encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial i.e. the entire range of scrutiny including crime detection and adjudication on the
basis thereof.
The expression “fair and proper investigation†in criminal jurisprudence has a twin purpose:
Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law;
Secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Once these
two conditions of fair investigations are satisfied, there will be least interference by the court with the investigation, much less quash the same. Fair
investigation is opposed to an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. In Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v State of Karnataka
& Ors., reported in 2012 (7) SCC 407; in same vein, it has been reiterated that the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by
conducting fair and proper investigation, in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty is punished and that the jurisdiction of a court to ensure
fair and proper investigation in an adversarial system of criminal administration is of a higher degree than in an inquisitorial system and it has to take
precaution that interested and influential persons are not able to misdirect, or hijack the investigation, so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the
offenders escaping the punitive course of law.
The Court seized with the matter cannot reduce itself to be resigned and helpless spectator, on the face of a faulty investigation or when it appears
that initiation of investigation and its completion by the investigating agency may not lead to a fair trial, in view of the attendant facts. A fair, impartial,
effective and efficient investigation is what expected from an investigating agency. In Babubhai v State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC
254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to fair investigation is a fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in the following words:
“32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on
the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct
the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to
rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer
is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth"".
(Vide R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State
of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69).
The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an
investigation. If the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge
sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice. In such a case the court would simply try to
decipher the truth only on the basis of guess or conjunctures as the whole truth would not come before it. It will be difficult for the court to determine
how the incident took place wherein three persons died and so many persons including the complainant and accused got injured.
Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be
permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice,
the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh
investigation.†(emphasis supplied)
The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance to the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental
canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well that of the Courts to ensure that investigation is fair and
does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that the high
responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie
be indicative of bias mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law de hors his position and influence in
the society. In Kashmeri Dev v. Delhi Administration and Anrs. [JT 1988 (2) SC 293] it has been held that the record of investigation should not show
that efforts are being made to protect and shield the guilty even where they are police officers and are alleged to have committed a barbaric
offence/crime. The Courts have even declined to accept the report submitted by the investigating officer where it is glaringly unfair and offends basic
canons of criminal investigation and jurisprudence. Contra veritatem lex nunquam a liquid permittit: implies a duty on the Court to accept and accord its
approval only to a report which is result of faithful and fruitful investigation. The Court is not to accept the report which is contra legem but to conduct
judicious and fair investigation and submit a report in accordance with Section 173 of the Code which places a burden and obligation on the State
Administration. The aim of criminal justice is two- fold. Severely punishing and really or sufficiently preventing the crime. Both these objects can be
achieved only by fair investigation into the commission of crime, sincerely proving the case of the prosecution before the Court and the guilty is
punished in accordance with law."" (emphasis supplied) (See. Sidharta Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi); AIR 2010 SC 2352; 2010
(6) SCC 1)
The role of the investigating officer to bring out the real unvarnished truth for the courts to reach a right conclusion. The duty of the Investigating
Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real
unvarnished truth. The sole object of every trial is to conduct a fair trial in search of a ultimate truth viz whether the accused is an actual perpetrator
of the crime or is an innocent person. To find out the ultimate truth in a criminal case, the court is not dependent merely on the evidence placed on
record by the police. The effect of any criminal proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties as ultimately, it is the duty of the
court to leave no stone unturned to bring out the truth for doing complete justice between the parties and to protect the interest of the society as well.
(See. Jamuna Chaudhary and Ors. vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1974 SC 1822) and Pawan @ Diggi v. State; Manu/DE/0255/2014 decided on 24th
January, 2014 (Delhi)
In dealing with the concept of fair trial in relation to any criminal proceedings, the Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat
and Ors. reported in 2006 (3) SCC 374 held as under:-
“The complex pattern of life which is never static requires a fresher outlook and a timely and vigorous moulding of old precepts to some new
conditions, ideas and ideals. If the court acts contrary to the role it is expected to play, it will be destruction of the fundamental edifice on which the
justice delivery system stands. People for whose benefit the courts exist shall start doubting the efficacy of the system. Justice must be rooted in
confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: The Judge was biased.' (Per Lord Denning, M.R. in
Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd. v. Lannon, All ER p. 310 A.) The perception may be wrong about the Judge's bias, but the Judge concerned must be
careful to see that no such impression gains ground. Judges like Caesar's wife should be above suspicion (Per Bowen, L.J. in Leeson v. General
Council of Medical Education.). It was significantly said that law, to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. It has to keep the promise to justice
and it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchalantly. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its
protection lose hope (see Jennison v. Baker). Increasingly, people are believing as observed by Salmon quoted by Diogenes Laertius in Lives of the
Philosophers, Laws are like spiders' webs: if some light or powerless thing falls into them, it is caught, but a bigger one can break through and get
away Jonathan Swift, in his Essay on the Faculties of the Mind said in similar lines: Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps
and hornets break through. Right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth
are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice. The operative principles for a fair trial permeate the common law in both civil
and criminal contexts. Application of these principles involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests in a criminal trial: the interests of the
accused and the public and to a great extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of
persons who commit offences."" (emphasis supplied)
In Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab reported at (2018) 17 SCC 627, the right to fair trial has been reiterated and in paragraph 17 it has observed:-
“17. In a criminal prosecution, there is an obligation cast on the investigator not only to be fair, judicious and just during investigation, but also that
the investigation on the very face of it  must appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine
apprehension in the mind of an accused and not mere fanciful, that the investigation was not fair. In the circumstances, if an informant policeÂ
official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious
doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to
presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false
implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the investigation would therefore be a foregone conclusion.â€
Although in the context of a prayer for investigation by CBI the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and Ors. reported at AIR
2016 SC 1345 has reiterated the need for a fair, honest and impartial investigation. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the necessity
or otherwise of further investigation or re-investigation by the CBI in view of overall conspectus of facts and the state of law. In Pooja Pal (supra)
admittedly faced with such situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment. Justice Roy delivering the judgment on behalf of the
Bench in His Lordship’s inimitable style has highlighted the court’s duties to ensure a free and fair investigation in the following words in
paragraphs 72, 74, 76 and 77 are stated below:-
“72. The precedential ordainment against absolute prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial agency like the CBI, submission of the
charge-sheet by the normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order to
secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the public in general in the justice administering
mechanism, is thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a measure however can by no means be a matter of course or routine but has
to be essentially adopted in order to live up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing an independent and upright mechanism of justice
dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike.
The judicially propounded propositions on the aspects of essentiality and justifiability for assignment of further investigation or reinvestigation to an
independent investigating agency like the CBI, whether or not the probe into a criminal offence by the local/state police is pending or completed,
irrespective of as well, the pendency of the resultant trial have concretized over the years, applicability whereof however is contingent on the factual
setting involved and the desideratum for vigilant, sensitised and evenhanded justice to the parties.
A “speedy trialâ€, albeit the essence of the fundamental right to life entrenched in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a companion in
concept in “fair trialâ€, both being in alienable constituents of an adjudicative process, to culminate in a judicial decision by a court of law as the
final arbiter. There is indeed a qualitative difference between right to speedy trial and fair trial so much so that denial of the former by itself would not
be prejudicial to the accused, when pitted against the imperative of fair trial. As fundamentally, justice not only has to be done but also must appear to
have been done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe by the state police
notwithstanding, has to be essentially invoked if the statutory agency already in-charge of the investigation appears to have been ineffective or is
presumed or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. As the cause of justice has to reign supreme,
a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator and with the foreseen consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a
faulty investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty. Though a court’s
satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further
investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment.
The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation
or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law is to secure justice
on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency.
As every social order is governed by the rule of law, the justice dispensing system cannot afford any compromise in the discharge of its sanctified
role of administering justice on the basis of the real facts and in accordance with law. This is indispensable, in order to retain and stabilize the faith and
confidence of the public in general in the justice delivery institutions as envisioned by the Constitution.â€
Since trial is based on the charges framed by the investigating agency on the basis of materials collected during investigation it is imperative that to
ensure a fair trial there must be a fair and impartial investigation. A fair investigation is the foundation and backbone of a fair trial. Mithilesh Kumar
Singh v State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (9) SCC 795 has underlined the importance of fairness in investigation in paragraph 12 in the following
words:
“12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the
asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer
should or should not be ordered rests on the Court’s satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No
hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts.
What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just
because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim
because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime
or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee
agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an
outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are commonplace when State Police investigates matters of some
significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from
such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an
attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other
consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent.†(emphasis
supplied)
In Sasi Thomas v State & Ors reported in 2006 (12) SCC 421 it is stated that proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the
backbone of rule of law.
The issue whether a police officer is duty bound to register FIR upon receiving any information relating to commission of cognizable offence under
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and whether a police officer has power to conduct an enquiry in order to test veracity of such opinion before
registering FIR was considered by a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v Govt. of U.P & others reported in 2014(2)
SCC 1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the reference in the following words:-
“31. As such, a significant change that took place by way of the 1898 Code was with respect to the placement of Section 154, i.e., the provision
imposing requirement of recording the first information regarding commission of a cognizable offence in the special book prior to Section 156, i.e., the
provision empowering the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence. As such, the objective of such placement of provisions was clear which
was to ensure that the recording of the first information should be the starting point of any investigation by the police. In the interest of expediency of
investigation since there was no safeguard of obtaining permission from the Magistrate to commence an investigation, the said procedure of recording
first information in their books along with the signature/seal of the informant, would act as an “extremely valuable safeguard†against the
excessive, mala fide and illegal exercise of investigative powers by the police.
The use of the word “shall†in Section 154(1) of the Code clearly shows the legislative intent that it is mandatory to register an FIR if the
information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
................. The First Information Report is in fact the “information†that is received first in point of time, which is either given in writing or is
reduced to writing. It is not the “substance†of it, which is to be entered in the diary prescribed by the State Government. .......................
...........The non qualification of the word “information†in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code is for the reason that
the police officer should not refuse to record any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground that he is not satisfied
with the reasonableness or credibility of the information........
In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence
even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the
commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in
accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not
to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in
accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as
an FIR so as to initiate an offence....................
Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the “procedure established by
law†and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is
protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.
The object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one, that the criminal process is set into motion
and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is
recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later.
88) The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under
Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory.
98) While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory..............
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted
only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.â€
The observation of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in the Judgment Saluja Motey vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2020) 1 CAL LT 56
(HC) this regard is also pertinent. It says:
“13. This Court cannot also ignore the apprehension of the petitioner that she is pitted against influential persons and that the police (respondent
Nos.8 and 9) may not be in a position to act in an independent manner. Whatever may be the truth or falsity of such allegation, it is the duty of a writ
court to ensure that continue inaction of the police authorities or any apprehension of injustice complained of by the petitioner is suitably addressed.
The orders of the learned Court below record that the investigation is at a “nascent stageâ€. The interrogation of Dharma Pasman is also said
to be continuing as on date. No useful purpose will therefore be served if the ongoing investigation is interfered with at this stage. However, for
complete justice and the apprehension expressed that the petitioner may not get adequate protection under the laws, this Court deems it fit to direct
that the interrogation of Mr. Dharam Pasman to be completed within a reasonable period of time but not later than four weeks from date.â€
On such consideration it is naive to suggest that the writ petitioner must take recourse to alternative remedies or raise loopholes in the investigation at
the appropriate stage of the trial. Moreover, it appears that the SIT was formed on 17th August, 2019 and the judgement was delivered on 11th
September, 2019. The formation of SIT was never brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge and thereby it raises a serious doubt about the
claim made by the Government that SIT was formed on 17th August, 2021. If all was well with the investigation then what was the necessity to form
a SIT on the basis of a proposal dated 17th August, 2019. Was it merely an eye wash as the composition of SIT raises more questions as it consists of
officers against whom questions have been raised? It is an attempt to give an imprimatur to the investigation carried out by the police officers against
whom serious allegations have been made by the writ petitioners.
It was on conspectus of all such factors that investigation by CID is desirable.
Was it an attempt to circumvent the order of the learned Single Judge is an issue raised by the writ petitioners.
The sealing of the premises was equally bad and arbitrary.
U/S. 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, eviction of offenders from the premises or attachment of premises for improper use can be made if
the premise in question is a brothel. U/S. 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, it is only a Magistrate who may direct eviction or take any action
permitted under the section upon satisfaction arrived at pursuant to a show cause notice issued to the owner of the premises. U/S. 102 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the police officer is under an obligation to report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In Jagdish Chandra & Ors. v
State & Ors.; Volume 40 (1990) DLT 233 wherein the petitioner had challenged the seizure action of the police on the ground that the word
“seizure†appearing in Section 102 of the Code would imply actual taking of possession and, therefore,, would not include immovable property.
This contention was not answered and left open as the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the seizure order under Sec. 102 of the Code
was not in accordance with the Statutory requirement as the property should be discovered under circumstances which create a suspicion of the
commission of an offence, that is, the police officer should come across certain property in circumstances which create in his mind a reasonable
suspicion that an offence has been committed. Sec. 102, it was held, would not be attracted where the property has not been traced or discovered
which leads to a suspicion of an offence having been committed. Discovery of property should precede the detection of crime. This ratio was
subsequently followed in P.K. Parmar & Ors v. Union of India & Anr. reported in 1992 Cri LJ 2499 (Del) where the Delhi High Court has reiterated
that unless discovery of the property leads to the suspicion of an offence having been committed, Sec. 102 cannot be invoked for seizing such
property. In Ms. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police reported in 1988 Cri LJ 241 (Del)(DB) , it was held that Section 102 requires that the
seized property by itself should lead to the suspicion that some offence has been committed. In other words, the discovery of the offence should be a
sequel to the discovery of that property and not the other way around. That is not the case in the present scenario. The seizure of the property did not
in any way lead to the discovery of the offence. The sealing of the premise took place due to an alleged FIR whose authenticity is not verified and
which might as well have been obtained after coercion, bullying and inflicting mental trauma since there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. There is
no document on record to show that the police recorded the reasons for their satisfaction for coming to the conclusion that the restaurant is required to
be sealed for indefinite time.
Even after all this Sec 102 cannot be applied in this case various High Courts and most recently the Supreme Court in 2019 holding the opinion after
careful and extensive deliberations in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at AIR 2019 SC 4554 where
Sanjiv Khanna, J. on behalf of the Bench held that Sub Section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include
immovable property and consequently, a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot take custody of and seize any immovable property which
may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, and that the phrase “any property†in Sec 102 of
the Code would cover only “movable property†and not immovable property.
Attention should be paid to the fact that the petitioners may have been pitted against extremely influential people and while the Restaurant sealed and
ordinary people might be losing their livelihood, there should be a fair investigation into the matter. In the present case, the seal on the property should
be broken since the police after investigation have not found anything in the premises after multiple raids. The sealing of the Restaurant even after
renewal of its license by the Excise Board is causing unnecessary financial losses to the owners and a loss of livelihood for the staff of the
Restaurant.
Since we are unhappy with the composition of the SIT during course of hearing the state had suggested that composition of the SIT could be
reconstituted. We also observed at a much earlier stage of the hearing of the appeal that the State Government may reconstitute SIT and place it
before us at the earliest for our consideration. However, the state took inordinate delay in furnishing the names of reconstituted SIT and only on 5th
August, 2021 after the hearing was concluded on 29th July, 2021 and judgment was reserved the composition of the new special investigation team
consisting of one Deputy Superintendent of Police DEB, Jalpaiguri and four sub-Inspectors belong to four different police stations namely Raigang,
Mainaguri, Dhupguri and Jalpaiguri respectively was furnished. However, having regard to the nature of the complaints, the composition of the earlier
and reconstituted SIT we felt that to instill the confidence in the mind of the complainants, victims and the public at large, the investigation by CID as
directed by the learned Single Judge needs to be affirmed and upheld.
The reliance on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. (supra) does not help the administration as in the instant matter the allegations are primarily
against the police officers whose conduct raises serious doubt about fair investigation. The possibility of the said persons likely to influence the
investigation cannot be ruled out. The apprehension of likelihood of the investigation to be influenced by reason of the facts stated in the petition and
materials disclosed cannot be completely ignores. Moreover,
Government decided to form SIT on 17th August, 2019 after the writ petitioners have challenged the actions of the police authorities. The
apprehensions expressed are also prima facie found to have substance and requires investigation. Similarly Popular Muthiash (supra) and Bimal
Gurung (supra) are not authorities for the proposition that if the court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India found that
there are serious apprehensions about a free, fair and honest investigation the constitutional Courts would not decline to exercise its extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Free, fair, impartial and honest investigation are sine quo non to a criminal trial and Article 21 of
the Constitution of India ordain the authorities to follow the said cardinal principles. Constitution is supreme and overrides all statues. All statutes owe
their existence to the constitution. Statute may go as it is temporary but constitution is perennial. The constitutional courts as guardians of the
fundamental and legal rights of its citizens are duty bound to extend their arms to reach where injustice and infringement of such rights whenever and
wherever they occurred and found. The Constitutional Courts cannot be a mute spectator to an arbitrary and illegal actions of authorities just because
statute provides for a remedy. The law should not be seen to sit by limply and the Court cannot be a lame duck and wait when bolt is impending and
the situation is grave.
On such considerations we do not find any reason to interfere with the order directing CID to investigate. The Additional Director General of Criminal
Investigation Department shall assume charge of the investigation as directed by the learned Single Judge and conclude such investigation within 3
months from the date of communication of this order and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In view thereof, the direction upon the
CJM to try and complete investigation is set aside. However, the CJM shall record statements of the victim u/s. 164 of CrPC if not recorded earlier
within 2 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The learned Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to Additional
Director General (CID) and CJM, Jalpaiguri. All other directions including de-sealing/opening of Golden Valley Restaurant is also upheld.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
All the connected applications being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 9441 of 2019), CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10591 of 2019), CAN 3
of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10592 of 2019), CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. 10593 of 2019), CAN 5 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10845 of 2019) are disposed of in
terms of this order.