AZIJA BEGUM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel forthe parties.

2Copy pinpoint2. Leave granted.

3Copy pinpoint3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a rather B cryptic order of the High court by which the High Court, with respect, disposed of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution without adverting to the questions involved.

4Copy pinpoint4. The material facts of the case which are necessary for c us to consider for the purpose of disposal of the issues are that one lmran S/o Anwar Khan was found murdered under mysterious circumstances. His dead body was found on 22nd February, 2009 at the entrance of the Government hospital. Prior to that lmran was found missing and the appellant herein D went to the police station to lodge her First Information Report over that but the police sent the appellant back after recording a mere 'missing report'. Even though at that point of time, the appellant was said to have informed the police that lmran was allegedly kidnapped by one ljani Khan, but, the police recorded E a 'missing' report only.

5Copy pinpoint5. After that as the appellant came to know that the dead body of lmran was lying near the entry of the Government hospital, she immediately went to the police station again and informed the police of this fact also. According to the appellant's version, the police, instead of recording her statement and registering an F.1.R. passed on the said information to one ljani Khan.

6Copy pinpoint6. Two days thereafter, the wife of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. and on that basis, investigation was undertaken and two sons of the appellant, namely, Jaffar Khan and Sherkhan, were arrested.

7Copy pinpoint7. The appellant not being satisfied with the aforesaid state H

p. 198

A of investigation-, filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials on record, passed a detailed order, the concluding part of which reads as under: B "As the serious allegations have been made against police authorities as well as the present accused, in my opinion, further investigation is required because once police investigated the offence, then for the same offence separate crime as well as case number is not required. c Therefore, in my opinion, further investigation is necessary. Hence I pass follow;ng order:

ORDER

D P1 Jinsi is hereby directed to make the further investigation in the present offence and submit the report I within time.

8Copy pinpoint8. The main grievances of the appellant are that even E though the Magistrate was n9t satisfied with the way in which the investigation was proceeded and wanted further investigation to be conducted, but strangely handed over the investigation to the same police authorities about whose investigation the Magistrate was not satisfied.

9Copy pinpoint9. The appellant's contention is that once the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the matter was not properly investigated and required further investigation, the investigation should have been handed over to some other investigating agen::y. G

10Copy pinpoint10. When the order of the Magistrate was challenged by the appellant before the High Court on the basis of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the said petition came to be disposed of by the High Court by an unusually laconic order: H

AZIJA BEGUM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 199 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] • "1. Heard. At the instance of the applicant, since he A felt that statements of witnesses are not recorded, police officer has recorded statement of Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Daud, copy whereof is annexed to the report. If the complainant feels that few more witnesses are still left, he can bring such witnesses to the investigator and to ensure s to facilitate recording of statement.

2. Purpose of the writ petition is achieved. Consequently nothing survives. Petition disposed of."

11Copy pinpoint11. We ~re of the considered opinion that the order of the C High Court is very cryptic and the High Court has not looked into the material facts of the case. It was expected of the High Court to look into the matter with greater care and caution as ~ very serious offence had taken place followed by an investigation in respect of which th~ Magistrate himself had expressed serious reservations but failed to give proper direction.

12Copy pinpoint12. Lea,·ned counsel for the appellant submits t-efore us that the appellant wanted the investigation to be fairly conducted by an independent agency and urged before us for an order for the investigation to be conducted not by the same police authorities which had undertaken the investigation earlier but by any other independent investigating agency.

13Copy pinpoint13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that every citizen of this country has a right to get his or her complaint properly investigated. The legal framework of investigation provided under our laws cannot be made selectively available only to some persons and denied to others. This is a question of equal protection of laws and is covered by the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue is akin to ensuring an equal access to justice. A fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing rule of law and maintaining proper balance in law and order. These H

p. 200

A are very vital issues in a democratic set up which must be taken care of by the Courts.

14Copy pinpoint14. Considering the aforesaid vital questions, we dispose of this appeal by directing the second respondent, the 8 Additional Director General of Police, State CID, Pune Division, Pune, Maharashtra to order a proper investigation in the matter by deputing a senior officer from his organization to undertake a thorough investigation and examine in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and then furnish a report to the trial C Court within a period of three months from the date of taking charge of the investigation. The investigation is to be taken up within two weeks from the date of service of this order on the second respondent. The matter shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. We hope and expect an impartial D investigation of the case will take place.

15Copy pinpoint15. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.

R.P. Appeal allowed.