In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13 of 2023-SC- Victim has fundamental right of fair investigation & trial; Mere filing of chargesheet and framing of charges cannot be impediment in ordering further investigation, if facts so warrant: SC
Justices M.R.Shah &  C.T. Ravikumar [24-02-2023]

Read Judgment: ANANT THANUR KARMUSE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, February 25, 2023: To  do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the Constitutional Courts may order further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed, the Supreme Court has observed.

While dealing with the present appeal preferred  by the viction on feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment OF the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by which the High Court dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant, the Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice M.R.Shah observed that the High Court committed a very serious error in not ordering and/or permitting the State police agency to further investigate into the FIRs. 

The  appellant  was a Civil Engineer, working as a consultant, shared on his Facebook account a viral picture of one Mr. Jitendra Awhad, the then sitting Cabinet Minister of the State of Maharashtra, criticizing his act of ridiculing the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. 

According to the appellant four Policemen, two dressed in Civilian Dress and other two in uniform came to his residence and forcibly took him to the Bungalow of the said Minister. According to the appellant, thereafter, the Minister instructed his men to beat him and make him apologies for circulating the said viral picture of the Minister. The Minister threatened him to delete the post immediately. 

Thereafter, an ally of the Minister called the appellant on his number as he left his phone in his house and told his wife to delete the controversial post. According to the appellant, he was mercilessly and ruthlessly beaten up by the police personnel present at the premises of the Minister.

The  appellant went to the Police Station and he got the information that an FIR of 2020 under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(E) of the Information and Technology Act was  registered against him by the Police on the complaint of one Mr. Hitesh Wani,  the third accused  in the present case and close ally of the Minister with sole purpose to threaten him if in case he decides to file a complaint about the said incident.

It was the case on behalf of the appellant that thereafter the appellant without fear narrated the entire incident along with the specific allegations against the Minister and the other police officials and registered a complaint against the Minister and his men.

Subsequently,  apprehending and alleging the bias and alleging that the entire investigation has been conducted in sham and casual manner, and nothing significant was done by the Police, the appellant approached the High Court by way of present writ petition praying for transfer of the investigation of the aforesaid FIRs to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Mumbai or any other agency.

Thereafter various interim orders came to be passed by the High Court in the writ petition and the investigating agency of the State was compelled to carry out the investigation. 

During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and in view of the constant monitoring of the investigation by the High Court, the Minister Mr. Jitendra Awhad was added as an accused two years after the said incident. 

The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused on the basis of the chargesheets already filed, which according to the appellant was for the lesser offences than the actually committed, like, Kidnapping, abducting and causing grievous hurt.  By  the impugned judgment and order, the High Court  dismissed the said writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI and/or any other agency by observing that after the investigation. 

In view of the same, the present appeal was preferred. 

After hearing the parties at length,the Court opined that the High Court had  not committed any error in refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI. Even the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had  not vehemently pressed such a prayer.Hence , the Court was in  complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court insofar as refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI is concerned.

So far as the power of the Constitutional Courts to order further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation even after the chargesheet was filed and charges are framed was concerned,  the Court referred to following cases, Ram Jethmalani Vs. Union of India and to the case of  Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Ors.

“To  do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the constitutional courts may order further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed”, the Bench said.

If the submission on behalf of the accused and even as observed by the High Court that once the chargesheet is filed and the charges are framed, there may not be any order for further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation is accepted, in that case, the accused may see to it that the charges are framed to avoid any fair investigation / fair trial. It would lead to travesty of justice, the Court noted. 

The Court was of the opinion that a case was made out for further investigation and the State agency may be permitted to conduct a further investigation and to bring on record the further material, which may be in the furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial. The High Court did not consider the relevant aspects narrated hereinabove and therefore interference of this Court was warranted, the Court thus observed.