Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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."

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.

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.