Om Prakash Chugh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 110-111 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1696-1697 of 1999)
Petitioner: Om Prakash Chugh
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 110-111 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1696-1697 of 1999)
Judges: K. T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 01, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sections 156 (3), 482 – Criminal case – Investigation – Procedure – Incident resulting in the death of a person – Father of de-ceased making complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate and also praying for investigation by CBI – CJM passing order directing CBI to conduct investigation – On petition filed under Section 482(3) of Cr.P.C., High Court holding that there was no necessity of entrusting investigations to CBI – High Court also making comments on the averments contained in the complaint – On appeal; Held : Since appellant did not press the point relating to inves-tigation by CBI, Supreme Court not considering legal aspects relating thereto. However, as observations made by High Court would cause prejudice to the investigation agency, order of High Court directed to be set aside. (Paras 5 and 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. An incident happened on 2nd July, 1997 about which there ap-pears to be two rival versions. One version had come in the form of F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997, Police Station – City Sonepat (Harya-na). We are told that investigation in that case is continuing. Appellant is the father of one Vinod who died in the incident which happened on 2.7.1997. Appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 10.7.1997 alleging that his son was shot dead by the persons shown as accused therein. After narrating his own version of the incident appellant made a prayer at the final end that action under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) may be resorted to. Additionally, he prayed that investi-gation may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) or any other investigating agency which is totally inde-pendent of the local police. An order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.3.1998 directing the C.B.I. to conduct investigation into allegations set out in the said complaint.
3. In the meanwhile appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh for issuing necessary directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also for directing the C.B.I. to take up investi-gation in the cases involving F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997 and also the complaint which he filed before the C.B.I. The High Court dis-posed of the said original petition by order dated 3.4.1998 upholding that there is no necessity of entrusting the investiga-tion to the C.B.I. or any other agency.
4. Thereafter, a Revision was filed before the Sessions Court, Sonepat in challenge of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 18.3.1998. The Session Judge disposed of Revision by setting aside the above mentioned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. These appeals are in challenge of the judgment of the High Court mentioned above and the order passed by the Session Court dated 2.5.1998.
5. As we were considering the sustainability of the plea that a Magistrate while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code can direct the investigation to be taken up by any agency other than the police station to which complaint was to be forwarded, learned senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar arguing for the appellant submitted that appellant is not presently pressing for the prayer that investigation should be ordered by the Magis-trate to be taken up by the C.B.I. or other agency. This is recorded. Hence, we are not considering that legal aspect in these appeals.
6. The complaint filed by the appellant before the Magistrate should necessarily be forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned as provided in Section 156 of the Code. Such officer has to register an F.I.R on the allegations con-tained in the complaint. If there is an aggrieved person on account of the investigation so carried on by the local police he can approach either the State Government or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate orders in the matter. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel arguing for the State of Haryana submitted that if the appellant entertains any genuine grievance that fair and proper investigation would not be conducted by the local police he can approach the Government and then Government will pass appropriate orders after taking into account all the relevant factors. This submission is also record-ed.
7. The above are not enough to dispose of these appeals. We have come across from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that remarks have been made on the averments contained in the complaint as well as the case involved in F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997. We are of the considered view that the High Court should not have made such comments on the averments contained in the complaint as the same remains only in the embryo stage because the complaint has not yet been forwarded by the Magistrate to the police as contemplated in Section 156(3) of the Code. Even that apart, any finding on the merits of the case at a stage when investigation is pending would cause prejudice to the investigat-ing agency as well as the accused concerned. Those observations and remarks made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are not warranted, particularly since the stage was too pre-mature. We make it clear that we have not gone into the allegations made in the complaint or the materials collected by the investigating agency in respect of F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997. We refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage as the investi-gation into them must be held in the fairest manner possible. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid directions Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel submitted that (SLP (Crl.)……../2000 (@ CC(Crl.) 6739) may be permitted to be withdrawn. That SLP is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
9. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. An incident happened on 2nd July, 1997 about which there ap-pears to be two rival versions. One version had come in the form of F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997, Police Station – City Sonepat (Harya-na). We are told that investigation in that case is continuing. Appellant is the father of one Vinod who died in the incident which happened on 2.7.1997. Appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 10.7.1997 alleging that his son was shot dead by the persons shown as accused therein. After narrating his own version of the incident appellant made a prayer at the final end that action under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) may be resorted to. Additionally, he prayed that investi-gation may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) or any other investigating agency which is totally inde-pendent of the local police. An order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.3.1998 directing the C.B.I. to conduct investigation into allegations set out in the said complaint.
3. In the meanwhile appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh for issuing necessary directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also for directing the C.B.I. to take up investi-gation in the cases involving F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997 and also the complaint which he filed before the C.B.I. The High Court dis-posed of the said original petition by order dated 3.4.1998 upholding that there is no necessity of entrusting the investiga-tion to the C.B.I. or any other agency.
4. Thereafter, a Revision was filed before the Sessions Court, Sonepat in challenge of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 18.3.1998. The Session Judge disposed of Revision by setting aside the above mentioned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. These appeals are in challenge of the judgment of the High Court mentioned above and the order passed by the Session Court dated 2.5.1998.
5. As we were considering the sustainability of the plea that a Magistrate while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code can direct the investigation to be taken up by any agency other than the police station to which complaint was to be forwarded, learned senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar arguing for the appellant submitted that appellant is not presently pressing for the prayer that investigation should be ordered by the Magis-trate to be taken up by the C.B.I. or other agency. This is recorded. Hence, we are not considering that legal aspect in these appeals.
6. The complaint filed by the appellant before the Magistrate should necessarily be forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned as provided in Section 156 of the Code. Such officer has to register an F.I.R on the allegations con-tained in the complaint. If there is an aggrieved person on account of the investigation so carried on by the local police he can approach either the State Government or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate orders in the matter. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel arguing for the State of Haryana submitted that if the appellant entertains any genuine grievance that fair and proper investigation would not be conducted by the local police he can approach the Government and then Government will pass appropriate orders after taking into account all the relevant factors. This submission is also record-ed.
7. The above are not enough to dispose of these appeals. We have come across from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that remarks have been made on the averments contained in the complaint as well as the case involved in F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997. We are of the considered view that the High Court should not have made such comments on the averments contained in the complaint as the same remains only in the embryo stage because the complaint has not yet been forwarded by the Magistrate to the police as contemplated in Section 156(3) of the Code. Even that apart, any finding on the merits of the case at a stage when investigation is pending would cause prejudice to the investigat-ing agency as well as the accused concerned. Those observations and remarks made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are not warranted, particularly since the stage was too pre-mature. We make it clear that we have not gone into the allegations made in the complaint or the materials collected by the investigating agency in respect of F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997. We refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage as the investi-gation into them must be held in the fairest manner possible. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid directions Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel submitted that (SLP (Crl.)……../2000 (@ CC(Crl.) 6739) may be permitted to be withdrawn. That SLP is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
9. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
