Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1457 - HC - Indian LawsUnsatisfactory investigation - prayer for constituting the Special Investigation Team to investigate the offences - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of W.N. Chadha [1992 (12) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT] in paragraph 92 has held that the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation and also has no participation as a matter of right during the course of investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing final report under Section 173(2) of the Code - In the matter of Arnab Ranjan Goswami [2020 (5) TMI 702 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that the displeasure of an accused person about the manner in which the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation of a conflict of interest against the police conducting the investigation must not delay the legitimate course of law and warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power of the Court to transfer the investigation to CBI. Hence, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, it is not open to the appellant to raise a complaint against the direction of the learned Single Judge to constitute the SIT specially when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant on account of such a direction. The investigation is apparently delayed in the present case and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of DILAWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2018 (5) TMI 2152 - SUPREME COURT] has held that no investigating agency can take unduly long time in completing the investigation and that speedy investigation is recognized as a part of fundamental right of fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of P.K. Palanisamy [2009 (7) TMI 1311 - SUPREME COURT] well-settled principle of law has been reiterated and non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate the order if the Court or statutory authority had a requisite jurisdiction therefor - In the present case there is no issue of invalidation of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 06.05.2022. Even otherwise if the proceedings were taken up before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. that would not take away right of the respondent No. 1 to file a writ petition seeking investigation by SIT because such a power does not exist with the Judicial Magistrate. Thus, once the view taken by the learned Single Judge is found to be possible and proper view, then no case for interference is made out - there are no error in the order of the learned Single Judge and no ground for inference is made out - appeal dismissed.
|