Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811 of 2010 With Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.17950 of 2011 And Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.15638 of 2012 In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811 of 2010 In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008. Case: Sushila Devi Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811 of 2010 With Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.17950 of 2011 And Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.15638 of 2012 In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811 of 2010 In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008
CounselFor Appearing Parties: H.P. Raval, ASG, R.P. Bhat and P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Manish Singhvi, AAG, S.K. Sinha, Seema Kashyap, Amit Lubhaya, Milind Kumar, Rajiv Nanda, T.A. Khan, Shriniwas Khalap, Anando Mukherjee, Palash Kanwar, Divya Anand, B.V. Balramdas, Abhishek Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rakesh Dahiya, Gagan Deep Sharma and Preeti ...
JudgesSurinder Singh Nijjar And Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure - Sections 156(3), 173(2), 173(8), 190, 197, 157(1), 210; Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 302, 364, 346, 201, 218, 193, 174A
Citation2013 ALLMR 4077 (Cri), 2014 CriLJ 64, 2013 (4) JLJR 356, 2013 (4) PLJR 473, 2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 594, 2013 (12) SCALE 62, 2014 (1) SCC 269, 2013 (3) UC 2111
Judgement DateSeptember 24, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These applications have been filed by the parties praying for monitoring of the matter in question, on one hand and the other parties seek that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, it is not necessary to continue with the monitoring of the matter in question which is pending before the Criminal Court for adjudication

2. Therefore, the sole question as it appears to be germane at this stage in the matter is: whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as directed earlier, even after filing of the charge- sheet.

3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:

(a) In January, 2006, the Rajasthan Police came up with a list of most- wanted criminals of Rajasthan which included the name of Dara Singh, the deceased husband of the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3212/2008. An award of Rs.25,000/- was declared on his head and on October 23, 2006, it appears that he was killed in an encounter as would be evidenced from the subsequent FIR No. 396/2006 dated October 23, 2006 registered on the complaint of Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, a member of the Special Operation Group (SOG).

(b) In the FIR it was alleged that the deceased was equipped with sophisticated weapons and was killed in an encounter with the SOG after a gun-battle. In these circumstances, subsequently, Smt. Sushila Devi filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the Code) seeking directions under Section 156(3) of the Code for registration of an FIR against the member of the SOG and alleged that Dara Singh was killed by the SOG. The Judicial Magistrate by an order dated April 2, 2007, issues directions for investigation. These directions were in conflict with the investigation under FIR No.396/2006.

(c) Thereafter, Smt. Sushila Devi, widow of Late Dara Singh, filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1015/2007 before the High Court of Rajasthan against the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated May 28, 2007, dismissing the application under Sections 157(1) and 210 of the Code recording that the encounter, as alleged by Sushila Devi, is the subject-matter of FIR No.396/2006 which is under the process of an investigation.

(d) On August 2, 2007, the High Court issued notices to the respondents and by an order dated October 1, 2007, which is impugned in this petition, the High Court was pleased to recall its order dated August 2, 2007.

(e) In the said Special Leave Petition (No.3212/2008), an allegation has been made by Sushila Devi that her husband was killed in the said encounter by the Police officials of Special Operation Group, Jaipur on October 23, 2006 and, hence, prayed for a direction to initiate a CBI inquiry in the matter. The State of Rajasthan filed an affidavit and submitted that the Government had decided to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide their letter dated March 3, 2009. In these circumstances, the matter came up/disposed of by this Court on April 8, 2009.

(f) Thereafter, Smt. Sushila Devi filed Criminal Misc. Petition No.13244/2009 along with Criminal Misc. Petition No.13246/2009. This Court disposed of the said petitions on the ground that since the CBI has been directed to hold an investigation in respect of an offence alleged, no order need be passed on the said petitions. After complying with the orders of this Court, the CBI registered Case No.RC.2(S)/2010-SCU.V/SC-II/CBI/New Delhi on April 23, 2010 and took up investigation.

(g) During the investigation, another Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811 of 2010 was filed in this Court by the petitioner, praying for monitoring of investigation of the case and to direct the CBI to place the findings of investigation before this Court ahead of filing the same in competent court at Jaipur. This Court vide its order dated January 1, 2011 issued the following directions in the matter:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is deeply disappointing that the CBI has not yet completed the investigation despite the order of this Court dated 9th April, 2010. On the request of the learned counsel for CBI, we grant two months further time to complete the investigation, failing which a serious view will be taken by this Court about the functioning of the CBI.

List on 8th March, 2011."

(h) From time to time, the matter appeared before this Court and two months time was granted on March 8, 2011 to complete the investigation by the CBI. The State of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • MAHESH DHANAJI SHINDE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Supreme Court, 27-02-2014
    • India
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • 27 February 2014
    ...and it does not have enormous proportion, the option of life imprisonment has been exercised in certain cases. Extreme poverty 9 2013 (12) SCALE 622 45 Page and social status has also been taken into account amongst other circumstances for not awarding death sentence. In few cases, time spe......
1 cases
  • MAHESH DHANAJI SHINDE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Supreme Court, 27-02-2014
    • India
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • 27 February 2014
    ...and it does not have enormous proportion, the option of life imprisonment has been exercised in certain cases. Extreme poverty 9 2013 (12) SCALE 622 45 Page and social status has also been taken into account amongst other circumstances for not awarding death sentence. In few cases, time spe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT