2012 JTR(SC) 721
2012 120 AIC 134 ; 2012 95 AllLR 898 ; 2012 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 4086 ; 2013 1 ALT(Cri)(SC) 493 ; 2013 1 CriLR(Cal) 352 ; 2013 1 EastCrC(SC) 209 ; 2012 10 JT 451 ; 2012 Supp4 KLT 32 ; 2012 4 MLJ(Cri) 512 ; 2012 10 Scale 157 ; 2012 10 SCC 731 ; 2013 1 SCC(Cri) 117 ; 2012 9 SCR 287 ; 2012 8 SLT 405 ; 2012 KHC 4592 ; 2012 7 Supreme 491 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR. - Petitioners
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 19 of 2012
Decided on : 11-10-2012.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.173(8)
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus for constituting a Committee to re-investigate bomb blast cases since 2002. The relevant statutory framework stems from the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 173(8), which empowers an investigating officer to order further investigation even after filing a charge sheet or final report, thereby providing a statutory remedy available before the appropriate forum without the need for a parallel supernumerary body. The Court examines how this statutory scheme governs ongoing criminal proceedings and limits judicial interference in ways that could disrupt the procedural regularity already established by the legislature.
(B) The key legal principles are that criminal proceedings must proceed primarily under the established Code of Criminal Procedure and statutory safeguards; courts should not create parallel investigative mechanisms lacking statutory authority; parties must exhaust existing appellate and revisional remedies; and legal aid systems must be utilized to protect the rights of accused persons; any direction that would interfere with ongoing trials must respect procedural due process and the principle of legality.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for constitution of a high-level Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge to re-investigate all bomb blast cases since 2002, alongside ancillary prayers for direction to initiate criminal or departmental action against police and intelligence officers, to make laptops recovered from accused persons public, to take action against communal organizations, and to release detainees lacking conclusive evidence. The petition was treated as a public interest litigation.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the requested relief would amount to a roving inquiry into pending criminal cases and would create a parallel body without statutory sanction, leading to chaos and confusion in ongoing proceedings. It observed that existing criminal procedure provides adequate mechanisms for further investigation or challenge of adverse orders through designated forums and appellate bodies, and that accused persons have access to free legal aid through Legal Service Authorities. The Court concluded that the petition failed and that aggrieved parties should pursue their remedies through established legal channels.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 and Article 21 can be entertained to direct the constitution of a parallel investigative Committee in matters already covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure; whether such direction would interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings; and whether the availability of statutory remedies and free legal aid negates the necessity for the prayed-for relief.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court reasoned that the prayer for a Committee under Article 32 would create an unstatutory, parallel investigative mechanism lacking procedural safeguards, unnecessarily interfering with ongoing criminal cases already governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 173(8); since adequate statutory remedies and free legal aid exist, the petition could not be entertained and must be dismissed.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed and left open for the concerned parties to pursue their remedies through the appropriate forum and in accordance with the law.
(A) The petition invokes Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus for constituting a Committee to re-investigate bomb blast cases since 2002. The relevant statutory framework stems from the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 173(8), which empowers an investigating officer to order further investigation even after filing a charge sheet or final report, thereby providing a statutory remedy available before the appropriate forum without the need for a parallel supernumerary body. The Court examines how this statutory scheme governs ongoing criminal proceedings and limits judicial interference in ways that could disrupt the procedural regularity already established by the legislature.
(B) The key legal principles are that criminal proceedings must proceed primarily under the established Code of Criminal Procedure and statutory safeguards; courts should not create parallel investigative mechanisms lacking statutory authority; parties must exhaust existing appellate and revisional remedies; and legal aid systems must be utilized to protect the rights of accused persons; any direction that would interfere with ongoing trials must respect procedural due process and the principle of legality.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for constitution of a high-level Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge to re-investigate all bomb blast cases since 2002, alongside ancillary prayers for direction to initiate criminal or departmental action against police and intelligence officers, to make laptops recovered from accused persons public, to take action against communal organizations, and to release detainees lacking conclusive evidence. The petition was treated as a public interest litigation.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the requested relief would amount to a roving inquiry into pending criminal cases and would create a parallel body without statutory sanction, leading to chaos and confusion in ongoing proceedings. It observed that existing criminal procedure provides adequate mechanisms for further investigation or challenge of adverse orders through designated forums and appellate bodies, and that accused persons have access to free legal aid through Legal Service Authorities. The Court concluded that the petition failed and that aggrieved parties should pursue their remedies through established legal channels.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 and Article 21 can be entertained to direct the constitution of a parallel investigative Committee in matters already covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure; whether such direction would interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings; and whether the availability of statutory remedies and free legal aid negates the necessity for the prayed-for relief.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court reasoned that the prayer for a Committee under Article 32 would create an unstatutory, parallel investigative mechanism lacking procedural safeguards, unnecessarily interfering with ongoing criminal cases already governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 173(8); since adequate statutory remedies and free legal aid exist, the petition could not be entertained and must be dismissed.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed and left open for the concerned parties to pursue their remedies through the appropriate forum and in accordance with the law.
ORDER
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.-The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution ostensibly in public interest in which the petitioners pray for a Writ of Mandamus for constitution of a Committee to make further investigation of all the bomb blasts cases which have taken place since 2002.
2. When we examine the relief prayed for by the petitioners, we find that there are as many as six substantive prayers made by them including constitution of a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court along with team of competent officers and experts to make further investigation of all bomb blasts cases which have taken place since 2002 onwards. The prayer specifically mentions a list by way of Annexure P-45 wherein the details have been mentioned in order to monitor the investigation to be ordered while granting any relief in the writ petition.
3. The further prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to initiate criminal or departmental action against the erring police officers for having implicated alleged innocent Muslim boys by fabricating false evidence.
4. The third prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to initiate criminal or departmental action against the officers of Central and State Intelligence Agencies, who furnished wrong inputs to the State Police and thereby pressurised them to arrest innocent Muslim boys.
5. In the fourth prayer the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondents to make the contents of the laptops, recovered from Lt. Col. Purohit and Mahant Dayanand Pandey, public and thereafter make an inquiry for taking action against the culprits who were involved in anti-national terror activities.
6. In the fifth prayer they seek for a direction to the first respondent for taking action against communal organisations like RSS, VHP and their allied forums who alleged to have indulged in bomb blasts cases and other terror related activities. In the last prayer they seek for a direction to release on bail the detenus arrested in bomb blasts cases referred to in Annexure P-45 against whom there is no clinching or conclusive evidence.
7. To sum-up the grievance of the petitioners, as per the averments contained in the petition, is that the real culprits are being shielded from taking any action against them, while innocent Muslim boys have been roped in various bomb blasts cases throughout the country since the year 2002 and in order to unearth the said factor, this Court should direct the first respondent to constitute a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court who should be assisted with the team of officers having competent investigation skills along with other experts.
8. At the very outset, we wish to state that if the prayer of the petitioners were to be accepted for whatever grounds stated in the petition and any such Committee is directed to be constituted that will only result in making a roving inquiry into the various criminal proceedings so far lodged connected with cases of bomb blasts all over the country. We are not, therefore, inclined to countenance such a wide prayer asked for in this writ petition.
9. Since criminal cases registered in connection with various incidents are either pending trial before the competent jurisdictional courts or being investigated by the jurisdictional police, it is premature to say whether any and if so which of the accused is innocent or has been falsely implicated. If anyone is falsely roped in any offence either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or under any other special enactments, by way of criminal proceeding, it is needless to state that there are enough safeguards provided under the various laws and under the criminal law jurisprudence, to protect the interest of any such person claiming himself to be innocent and demonstrate before the concerned Fora that he has been falsely implicated in any offence. Therefore, it will be for the concerned individual against whom any criminal proceeding is lodged to work out his remedy. For instance, if in any particular criminal case, one wishes to seek for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. the same can always be effected even after the filing of the final report. Such a power existing with the Investigating Officer, having been statutorily provided, it will be a futile exercise if such a statutory exercise is to be entrusted with a supernumerary body created under the head of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court along with other team of officers and experts. When the time tested Criminal Procedure Code and other statutory provisions are working in the field providing for such well laid down procedure to be followed in the matter of regulating such criminal proceedings, the granting of the petitioners’ prayer would amount to creating a parallel body without any statutory sanction and to function only under some directions of this Court which would be lacking in very many procedural details and will ultimately result in utter chaos and confusion in dealing with the criminal proceedings which have already been lodged and progressing before various criminal courts.
10. We are not, therefore, inclined to consider such a wide prayer applied for by the petitioners for constitution of a special Committee. The other directions prayed for by the petitioners will also only result in interfering with the already pending proceedings in which the concerned individuals who have been arrayed as accused or otherwise can seek for appropriate relief either for further investigation or for their discharge or in the event of any other adverse orders passed by the concerned Court, approach the higher fora for redressal of their grievances. There are various levels of Appellate Fora to examine the manner in which the proceedings are being pursued before the Courts wherein such criminal proceedings have already been lodged or in the event of any adverse orders having been passed, examine the correctness of such orders in order to grant appropriate relief or to confirm such decisions taken by the lower fora.
11. It will be for the concerned individuals who face such criminal proceedings to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Even if such individuals are not in a position to seek for any appropriate legal assistance on their own, having regard to the set up of Legal Service Authority and its effective functioning, in the nook and corner of the country, there should be no dearth of legal assistance for those affected persons to seek for such legal aid free of cost. Therefore, when there is no dearth for seeking legal assistance free of cost, on that score as well it cannot be held that the concerned individuals will be left with no remedy. In fact, it is now well known that on mere asking of the concerned presiding officer, those involved in such criminal proceedings are being offered free legal aid of high calibre in order to ensure that no innocent person is being punished for want of proper legal assistance.
12. Having regard to the above factors, we do not find any scope to entertain this writ petition and leave it open for the concerned parties against whom any criminal proceeding is lodged to work out their remedies in the appropriate manner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.