2015 ALL SCR 3806
H. L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Sunil Gangadhar Karve Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Writ Petition (Crl) No.26 of 2014
11th February, 2014.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. MUKUL ROHTAGI, Sr. Adv., Mr. RIZWAN MERCHANT, Mr. ARUNABH CHOWDHURY, Mr. S.D. NANGRE, Mr. VAIBHAV TOMAR, Mr. KARMA DORJEE, Mr. SATBIR PILLANIA, Ms. DIKSHA RAI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. RAM JEHMALANI, Sr. Adv., Dr. ABHISHEK M. SINGHVI, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.H. PAREKH, Sr. Adv., Mr. SANTOSH PAUL, Mr. NAVNEET WAZALWAR, Mr. ARVIND GUPTA, Ms. POOJA SINGH, Mr. PRUTHVIRAJ N.K., Mr. DEBOPRIYA PAL, Mr. KAMAL SINGH, Mr. PUNEET VERMA, Ms. P.R. MALA, Mr. PRANAV DIESH, Mr. KARAN KALIA, Mr. M.Y. DESHMUKH, Ms. ARTI SINGH
Constitution of India, Arts.32, 226 - Writ jurisdiction u/Art.32 - Invocation of - Order of Sr. Inspector of police for closure of enquiry in respect of some economic offences, challenged - Prayer also made to direct investigation to be conducted by CBI - Prayers are of such nature which can be gone into by High Court - Petition dismissed in view of withdrawal sought by petitioner for pressing the same before High Court. (Paras 4, 5)
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4444 (S.C.)=2013 (13) SCALE 559 [Para 1,2]
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2014 ALL SCR 1893=2013 (13) SCALE 559 [Para 1,2]
Aleque Padamsee & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2007 ALL SCR 1978=(2007) 6 SCC 171 [Para 4]
A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr., 1988 (2) SCC 602 [Para 4]
JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner in support of this writ petition. This writ petition is filed with lots of agony and it is submitted that in spite of an order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 2013 in earlier SLP(C) No.4264-4266 of 2013 recording the willingness of the State of Maharashtra that the complaints lodged by the petitioner will be looked into in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2013 (13) SCALE 559 : [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4444 (S.C.) : 2014 ALL SCR 1893], the appropriate order is not passed.
2. The petitioner contends that he has lodged serious complaints with respect to various offences against respondent No.8 to 13 with the authorities of the police in Mumbai and since no appropriate action was being taken he went to the High Court earlier. It was submitted by the State before the High Court that the matter had to be proceeded under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The respondent No.8 and his family member were allowed to intervene in the matter. That order passed by the High Court was set aside by this Court by its order dated 22.11.2013.The order passed by this Court recorded that the four complaints made by the petitioner dated 01.02.2012, 02.02,2012, 15.02.2012 and 02.03.2012 will be gone into and the concerned police officer will take decision on those complaints in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2013 (13) SCALE 559 : [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4444 (S.C.) : 2014 ALL SCR 1893].
3. We are informed that thereafter an order has been passed by a senior Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing dated 16.1.2014 which essentially records whatever are the grievances of the petitioner in substance, but ultimately holds that this enquiry has not disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence which requires further action through the concerned office and hence the enquiry was closed. Mr. Rohtagi learned senior counsel submits that it is therefore that the present writ petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He stresses the first two prayers of this writ petition. The prayer (a) is to quash and set aside the aforesaid decision and prayer (b) is to direct the investigation to be conducted by C.B.I. This is basically because as stated by the petitioner, the concerned accused are quite powerful and therefore it is necessary that the complaints be investigated by an agency other than the investigating agency of the State of Maharashtra. This is stressed particularly on the background of the order that has been passed by the concerned police officer.
4. We have noted this submission of Mr. Rohtagi. There are, however, two difficulties in his way. Firstly, that if the police officers decline to look into the complaint, the ordinary procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code is available to the complainant as held by a bench of three Judges of this Court in Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 : [2007 ALL SCR 1978]. Besides, apart from the rights of the complainant, the rights of the accused also have to be safeguarded, and the accused has a right of appeal against any such determination if the complainant choses to approach the concerned magistrate. The right of appeal has been held to be a very important right of the accused by this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. reported in 1988 (2) SCC 602.
5. That apart the two prayers which the petitioner is seeking are prayers which can be gone into by the High Court and there is no reason why such prayers should not be pressed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having noted this position, Mr. Rohtagi has stated that he is not pressing this petition any more. He states that he is seeking to withdraw this writ petition, and that the petitioner will move the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief. He makes a further request that in the event such a petition is filed, the same may be taken up at the earliest for consideration. We are sure that the High Court will do the needful in that manner.