High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD930 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1266 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1988 OF 2024AJAY CHANDRAPRAKASH BAHETIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. A.K. Bhosle, Advocate for petitionerMr. S.S. Dande, APP for sole respondent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.DATE:22nd AUGUST, 2024ORDER :(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present writ petition has been filed for following relief :“(C)By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature ofwrit the respondent may be directed to incorporate enquiry reportsand allied documents filed along with the representation dated06.05.2024 and 09.05.2024 i.e. Exh.D in the charge sheet.”2The petitioner is the original accused and he has also filedCriminal Application No.1988 of 2024 for quashing First Information Report 2930_Cri.WP_1266_2024vide Crime No.109/2018 registered with Kuntoor Police Station and theentire proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.29/2020 pendingbefore learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naigaon, Dist. Nanded, for theoffence punishable under Sections 166, 201, 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,477(A), 120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and underSections 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal instructed bylearned Advocate Mr. A.K. Bhosale for petitioner as well as applicant andlearned APP Mr. S.S. Dande for respondent in both matters. 4It has been vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.D. Sapkal instructed by learned Advocate Mr. A.K. Bhosle that the petitioneris an unfortunate citizen who has been dragged into a false litigation. Theinvestigation that has been carried out cannot be said to be fair investigation.The informant being Police Inspector of Special Squad, Nanded had lodgedFirst Information Report on 19.07.2018 alleging that when he along with hiscolleagues were on patrolling duty on 18.07.2018, they got a secretinformation in respect of illegal hauling of essential commodities i.e. wheatand rice from the godown of FCI Jawahar Nagar, Tupa to the company ofpresent petitioner/applicant. The informant and his colleagues started 3930_Cri.WP_1266_2024surveilling the factory premises of petitioner secretly and found that 10trucks were proceeding towards Krushnoor MIDC at about 8.30 p.m. Allthose trucks entered in company premises where the raid was conducted.Drivers were apprehended and they gave information. About 6000 gunnybags weighing 50 k.gs. each having stamp of Government of Punjab and FCImonogram were confiscated. However, the Investigating Officer had notconsidered the procedure of public distribution system and how the goodsmoved. Documents were produced before Investigating Officer by accused,but those were not considered, which were self explanatory regarding thepossession/how trucks were found in the factory premises ofpetitioner/applicant. The accused ought to have been heard. When theaccused has right of fair investigation without any prejudice, then theprinciple in audi alteram partem ought to have been adhered to. The entirecharge sheet does not disclose any of the offences which are invoked. 5Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the decision of theCoordinate Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare andothers vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal ApplicationNo.1346 of 2023 in Criminal Application No.573 of 2022 decided on18.10.2023, wherein the Investigating Officer was directed to consider thedocuments which were relied upon by the accused. In that case reliance was 4930_Cri.WP_1266_2024placed on Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others [(2010) 12 SCC 254],wherein it is observed that -“The investigation into a criminal offence must be free fromobjectionable features and infirmities which may legitimately lead toa grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfairand carried out with an ulterior motive.”Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in Vijay Tyagivs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others [(2013) 5 SCC 762], wherein followingare the observations - “48.What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression‘fair and proper investigation’ in criminal jurisprudence ? It has atwin purpose : Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest,just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on afair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case beforethe court of competent jurisdiction. Once these twin paradigms offair investigation are satisfied, there will be the least requirement forthe court of law to interfere with the investigation, much less quashthe same, or transfer it to another agency. Bringing out the truth byfair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentiallyrepel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of falseimplication. Thus, it is inevitable for a court of law to pass a specificorder as to the fate of the investigation, which in its opinion is unfair,tainted and in violation of the settled principles of investigativecanons.” 5930_Cri.WP_1266_2024Herein also the petitioner is having right of fair investigation andas the documents of the petitioner were not considered those directions needto be given. 6Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the writ petition aswell as application on the ground that accused cannot direct the InvestigatingOfficer as to how the investigation should proceed. All the relevantdocuments in the possession of Government authority were perused andraiding party had in fact seen the trucks going inside the premises of factoryowned by present petitioner. Huge grains, which were meant for publicdistribution system, were found in the trucks. 7The first and the foremost fact which requires to be consideredin case of criminal application, wherein the applicant intends to invokeinherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, would show that First Information Report was lodged on19.07.2018 and at that time it was under Sections 420, 120-B of the IndianPenal Code and Sections 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act. However, itappears that as the investigation progressed more accused persons weretranspired and, therefore, Section 166, 201, 409, 406, 467, 468, 471, 477-Aread with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. The 6930_Cri.WP_1266_2024investigation was complete and charge sheet was filed in the year 2020 itself.Still the present application has been filed in May, 2020. Therefore, certainly,there is delay. Further, if we consider the grounds raised for quashing theproceedings, those are almost similar to the petition which the applicant hasfiled separately, wherein he wants the above said direction to theInvestigating Officer. Therefore, certainly, the application suffers from delayand laches, even independently. It is to be noted that prima facie evidence iscollected for attracting some of the offences. We want to make it clear thatall those sections under which now the charge sheet is filed may not beagainst the present applicant, but that does not require quashment of FirstInformation Report or the proceedings in respect of those sections which arenot applicable to the applicant. In fact, those sections would be thenapplicable to the co-accused and then it has to be pointed out to the learnedTrial Judge or the learned Trial Judge should independently consider whichsection is attracted against which accused and how the charge is thenrequired to be framed. Therefore, certainly, no case is made out forexercising inherent powers of this Court. 8Now, as regards writ petition is concerned, the petitioner wantsto invoke the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. As aforesaid, the First Information Report was
Legal Reasoning
7930_Cri.WP_1266_2024registered on 19.07.2018, charge sheet has been filed in 2020 and presentpetition has been filed in 2024. After the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the Investigating Officer cannot be asked to consider thedocuments, which the petitioner wants to rely. The petitioner is accused andhe cannot direct the Investigating Officer as to how the investigation wouldproceed. This writ petition also suffers from delay and laches. 9Observations from Babubhai (supra) and Vinay Tyagi (supra) aredefinitely binding upon this Court. We are also of the opinion that theinvestigation should be fair, however, the writ petition deserves to bedismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. There is absolutely noreasonable ground given by the petitioner as to why he had not approachedthis Court at any earlier point of time. He has allowed the time to runagainst him. Hence, Criminal Writ Petition as well as Criminal Applicationstand dismissed. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd