1 WP(C) No.169/2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SEN 22.03.2016 This writ petition was filed on 20.07.2015 by the writ petitioner while stating the grievance that proper investigation was not being carried out on the unnatural death of her son, who was the Officer-in-Charge of Patharkhmah Police Outpost in District Ri Bhoi. In this petition, this Court granted time to the Investigating Officer to come out with the result of the investigation and then, on 22.09.2015, the IGP in-charge Eastern Range-cum- Supervisor Officer of SIT assured the Court that the result of investigation will be filed within 25 days. Thereafter, on 27.10.2015, while taking note of the submission of the Advocate General that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 IPC had been filed, this Court directed the CJM concerned to take prompt steps for completing the committal proceeding so that the concerned Court of Sessions could proceed expeditiously. It was, however, sought to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there were several flaws in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agency to which, the Court indicated that such flaws could be effectively placed before the Court of Sessions at the time of consideration of the charge; and it was also indicated that the
2 Court of Sessions could pass appropriate order, if not satisfied with the charge sheet. The order dated 27.10.2015 reads as under:- 27.10.2015 Mr. KS Kynjing, learned Advocate General submits at the Bar that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC had been submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh. Since the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is triable by the Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh has to pass a committal order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for committing the case to the concerned Court of Session. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take up prompt steps for completing the committal proceeding under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. so that the concerned Court of Session may dispose of the case expeditiously. Mr. N Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are several flaws in the charge sheet filed by the Special Investigating Authority. Several flaws so contended by Mr. N Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner can be effectively put up before the learned Court of Session at the time of consideration of the charge. It is clear under the Cr.P.C. that if the concerned Court of Session is not satisfied with the charge sheet submitted by the investigating authority for reason that there are several flaws in the charge sheet, the learned Court of Session can pass appropriate order for further investigation or any order which deems appropriate. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh is directed to take up prompt steps for completing the committal proceeding so that the concerned Court of Session may take up necessary steps promptly keeping in view of the aforesaid observations made by us. List this case for further orders on 24.11.2015. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order by WT Message as well as by Special Messenger to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh as well as to the concerned Court of Session for necessary compliance.
3 The copy of the charge sheet in a sealed cover submitted before this Court is returned without opening the sealed cover as the matter is to be taken up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh and the concerned Court of Session in view of the observations made by us. List this matter accordingly on 24.11.2015. In view of the opinion expressed and observations made in the order aforesaid, the proceedings in the present petition could have been closed by this Court at that stage itself; but it appears that only for the purpose of examining the progress of the matter before the Court concerned that this petition was kept pending. However, on 24.11.2015, this Court entertained certain doubts on the result of investigation and hence directed the parties to file affidavits with the following order:- 24.11.2015 Mr N Syngkon, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner. Mr KS Kynjing, learned Advocate General, assisted by Ms Y Shylla, learned GA, represents the State respondents. Though the trial is said to be continuing in terms of the last order dated 27.10.2015 but there are many vital questions in the mind of the Court which may require clarification. Therefore, both the parties are directed to file affidavits with precise submissions as to why this case should be handed over or should not be handed over to CBI for further investigation. Moreover, on a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we still have doubt as to why the police has presumed it to be a case of suicide and not homicide. List on 16.12.2015.
4 Thereafter, on 16.12.2015, the arguments were heard and order was reserved. However, on 13.01.2016, the case was released from CAV with the following order:- 13.01.2016 After the order dated 27.10.2015 passed in this case, neither the petitioner nor the respondents apprised this Court any order passed by the concerned Court of Sessions. This Court had clearly indicated in the order dated 27.10.2015 that several flaws so contended by Mr. N Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner can be effectively put up before the learned Court of Sessions at the time of consideration of the charge. It is clear under the Cr.P.C. that if the concerned Court of Sessions is not satisfied with the charge sheet submitted by the investigating authority for reason that there are several flaws in the charge sheet, the learned Court of Sessions can pass appropriate order for further investigation or any order which deems appropriate. This Court would like to know the order passed by the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, permission is granted to the parties to apprise this Court any order passed by the concerned Court of Sessions for just decision of this case. This case is released from CAV. List this case for hearing. It is made clear that this case shall not be treated as part heard. Thereafter, this matter was listed on 08.03.2016, when it was adjourned for the counsel being on sanctioned leave. On matter being taken up today, learned Sr. GA submitted that the proceedings in the present petition deserve to be terminated after filing of the charge sheet, as per the course indicated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and others: (2014) 1 SCC 269. However, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that there had
5 been several flaws in the investigation; and filing of the charge sheet only for the offence of abetment of suicide was not justified. In regard to the submission sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner, the grievance against the charge sheet, if any, could have been, and ought to have been, placed before the Court of Sessions at the time of consideration of the charge, as had already been indicated in the order passed by the Court. Looking to the subject matter of this writ petition, we would not be making any other comment or observation; suffice it would be to observe for the present purpose that in case of any grievance remaining yet or arising in future, it is always open for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. So far the present petition is concerned, with the investigation being complete and report having been submitted to the Court, no further order appears requisite. This petition is, therefore, taken as redundant now; and stands disposed of as such but without prejudice to the right of either of the parties in taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Lam Item No.5