Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Riyazu Ddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2016
Writ Petition No.874 of 2016
17.10.2016
Shri R.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
Shri V.K. Tankha, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
During the course of hearing of this writ petition and after hearing Shri Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in detail, we find that on 03.02.2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.511/2006 passed the following directions:-
"We feel that the order of the High Court quashing the F.I.R. Cannot be sustained but we decline to give reasons as the learned counsel for the parties apprehend that this may prejudice either of the parties during the course of the proceedings hereinafter. We, however, direct that the matter be investigated afresh and Mr. S.K. Dubey, the learned senior counsel for the appellant State assures that the investigation will be completed within three months. We also state that the Investigating Officer will keep in mind that every mistake or error committed by an officer need not amount to a criminal act and that in the normal course of official duties mistakes may and do occur. We direct that this aspect will be examined by the Investigating Officer very carefully. We also direct that the respondent will be given all opportunity to project his views and will also be permitted to furnish such documents as are necessary during the course of the investigation."
(emphasis supplied) The aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to investigate the matter afresh and to examine and to give respondent No.3 all opportunity to project his views and also to furnish documents which are necessary during the course of investigation. Certain observations are also made by the Supreme Court in the order with regard to the mistake committed by an officer in the normal course of official duties, which may not be a criminal offence.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Supreme Court is not being followed and during the course of hearing on 12.07.2016, even though we questioned the locus standi of petitioner in filing the writ petition we made the following observations in the order passed by us on 12.07.2016 while issuing notice. The observation made by us reads as under:-
"Accordingly State Government to show cause as to why the matter is kept pending and why sanction for prosecution has not been accorded till date."
Shri Tankha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 made a submission to say that influenced by this order and without complying with the observations and mandate of the Supreme Court and without doing anything to conduct the fresh investigation, on the basis of the investigation which was already conducted prior to 03.02.2011, the matter has been forwarded to the competent authority for sanction for investigation. He produces before us a tabulated chart to demonstrate that no fresh investigation or inquiry has been conducted as directed by the Supreme Court and without complying with the mandate of the Supreme Court, in its letter and spirit, merely a formality has been completed.
Even though Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel appearing for the State Government referred to Annexure R-2/1 to say that investigation was completed and sanction was sought for on 16.05.2011, we find that there is no document or material are available on record to show as to what was done by the investigating officer or the investigating authority after the orders were passed by the Supreme Court on 03.02.2011. Whether the statement of respondent No.3 was recorded after 03.02.2011? Whether he was granted any opportunity to give his say or produce documents after 03.02.2011 and what is the nature of inquiry conducted after 03.02.2011?
Prima facie, the tabulated chart produced by Shri Tankha would go to show that everything was done prior to 03.02.2011 including recording of statement of respondent No.3, which, according to Shri Tankha was undertaken on 21.11.2005. If what has been stated by Shri Tankha is correct, prima facie, it can be held that the mandate of the Supreme Court has not been followed and it seems that influenced by observations made by us on 12.07.2016, just to file reply before this Court, the matter has been referred to the competent authority. It seems that the observation made by us on 12.07.2016 was without taking note of various aspects of the matter which were relevant and which are pointed out on behalf of respondent No.3 today.
That being so, we direct stay of all the proceedings in the matter initiated after 12.07.2016 in the light of observations made by us, as prima facie we find that mandate of the Supreme Court's has not been complied with. The Investigating Officer to demonstrate before us by filing affidavit and documents of the competent investigating officer and show as to how and in what manner the order passed by the Supreme Court on 03.02.2011 is implemented and followed in its letter and spirit. Till then, all further proceedings in the matter shall remain in abeyance.
Even though this is a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner has been questioned, but as certain observations made by us on 12.07.2016 is causing prejudice to the respondent No.3, which cannot be permitted, in the interest of justice, we are constrained to pass the aforesaid order.
List the matter on 21.10.2016.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
psm