Not Satisfied With Mode & Manner Of Investigation By Police: Bombay HC Transfers Nagpur Ram Jhula Hit And Run Case To CID
The Bombay High Court has observed that it was not satisfied with the mode and manner in which the investigating agency had worked in the Ram Jhula Hit and Run incident in Nagpur.
The Court transferred the investigation to the State Crime Investigation Department (CID).
The Division Bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V Joshi held, “The above circumstances persuades us to exercise inherent powers to bring the credibility and confidence in the investigating agency for ultimately reaching to the truth and to guard the fundamental rights of a citizen. Inasmuch as the transfer of investigation from local police to some other State Agency, could cause no prejudice to the State in any manner. One of the reason for transfer is to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the society. In conclusion we are not satisfied about the mode and manner in which the investigating agency had worked, and therefore, as an exceptional situation we are inclined to transfer the investigation to State agency with a hope and trust for impartial, fair and truthful investigation.”
Advocate A.G. Hunge appeared for the Petitioner whereas Senior Advocate DV Chavhan and APP NH Joshi appeared for the Respondents.
A Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus for transferring the investigation to the CID for fair, proper and impartial investigation in the matter of an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1870 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The brief facts were that on the intervening night at Ram Jhula Bridge, Ritika Malu allegedly drove her car at excessive speed under the influence of liquor. She allegedly gave a dash to a two-wheeler from behind, which took the life of two youngsters. A crime came to be registered at the instance of kin of one of the deceased.
The Court noted that since the beginning the first informant and kin of the deceased were blaming the police for shielding the Accused. It was alleged that the investigation was purposely delayed to facilitate a safe passage to the accused in future trial. The investigating officer deliberately kept certain lacunae at the behest of the influential accused. Despite the seriousness, due to dilly-dallying tactics adopted by the police, the family of the victim has lost faith in the investigating agency which caused them to make several representations. Since no cognizance was taken by the higher police authorities, as well as by the State, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court for transfer of investigation.
The Prosecution had submitted that the prayer of the petition was not for transfer of the investigation but directions to the State Secretary to transfer the investigation.
On this fulcrum, the Court said, “We are afraid to buy this initial contention that the prayer is not specific for issuance of writ of mandamus. The entire tenor of the petition is that the investigation is unfair, biased and needs to be transferred. We see no deficiency in the prayer since ultimately the petitioner is seeking for transfer of investigation. Though the prayer does not sound properly, but, it unequovically conveys a demand for transfer of investigation.”
The Court highlighted that the lapses in the process would reasonably create an impression that the initial investigation was lacking the bonafides or was a tainted one. It added that the criminal offence is always against the society at large, casting an onerous duty on the State to faithfully discharge its sacrosanct responsibility in carrying out a fair investigation.
“On the premise that the manner of investigation is a prerogative of the agency, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the factual aspect by adhering to such general proposition. It is a bounden duty of the Courts to uphold the truth and truth means absence of deceit, fraud and absence of malafides. Impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. The people who are clamouring for justice should not harbor a feeling that, they are casualties despite demonstrating the unfairness and laxity in the process.”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal writ petition and transferred the investigation to the State’s CID.
Cause Title: Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:BHC-NAG:9757-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate A.G. Hunge
Respondents: Senior Advocate DV Chavhan, APP NH Joshi
