@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Vinod K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for
directing transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation to re-investigate the case.
2. The Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Murugan, who is alleged to have been killed by one Mohan and Ravi. In the eyewitness accounted,
specific allegations were levelled against Mohan and Ravi.
3. On the basis of the complaint by eyewitness, the First Information Report u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code stands registered against Mohan and
Ravi.
4. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader that after the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed in the court.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on a judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh
v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 1006 contends that it is open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to transfer the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation even at a stage when State Police has completed
investigation and charge-sheet has been filed in court.
6. The reliance is also placed on a judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, represented by Inspector
of Police reported in (2006) 3 SCC 245, wherein, the court while interpreting the provisions of Section 482, 374(2), 386 and 397 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, was pleased to lay down that the High Court in suo-motu exercise of its inherent power, can direct further investigation of the
case against persons who were not charge sheeted and were not accused at the state of trial, but where High Court felt that those person should
have been included in the Challan as accused. The word of action has been added in the judgement, that High Court should exercise the inherent
jurisdiction sparingly and only after applying its mind to the materials on record, so as to be satisfied itself about the existence of a strong prima
facie case against such persons and also consider whether any useful purpose would be served by issuing such directions, particularly, after a long
lapse of time.
7. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner has No. application to the facts of the present case.
8. In the first version, only two persons were named as accused, and reinvestigation is only sought on the basis of allegation made by the wife of
the deceased, said to have been given to her by a third party.
9. The judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (Supra) prima facie has No. application as
in case im hand it cannot be said that the state machinery has not investigated the case properly.
10. The judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, represented by Inspector of Police(Supra) also has No.
application, as the exercise of power u/s 482 can be exercised on the material placed before the trial court. The trial court can invoke Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add any accused who is suspected to be guilty of crime, but has not been charge-sheeted by the police, in
case any evidence comes on record. It is only on failure of trial court that this Court can exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sasi
Thomas v. State and Ors. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 72, wherein, the Honorable Supreme Court reiterated its stand that the direction for further
investigation after commencement of trial can be issued by the Supreme Court or High Court, in the case of failure of investigating agency to
perform its duty, to do complete justice.
12. As already mentioned above, except for the statement of the wife of the deceased which is based on, there is No. material nor anything is
placed on record, to show that the prosecuting agency has not acted properly while submitting the charge sheet. The jurisdiction to order
reinvestigation or further investigation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised
merely on the asking of a party, in absence of material showing that there has been failure of justice. The Petitioner in this case has alternative
remedy, to move the learned trial court at appropriate stage by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if any
evidence comes before the court, showing involvement of any other person in crime. At this stage, No. case is made out to order re-investigation,
of the case by the central Bureau of Investigation, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
13. The Writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. No. costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
