Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (High Court of Rajasthan) (12 May 2017)

Court has power to direct further investigation in interest of complete and fair investigation



Present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred for quashing of FIR registered as well as proceedings in furtherance thereof for offences under Sections 191, 192, 196, 197, 200, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B  of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Matter pertains to contest of election by Petitioner as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Jaswantpura. It is alleged in FIR that, alongwith nomination paper, a certificate of Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhi Nagar, Examination Wing, Vadodara was submitted by contestant, present petitioner. Petitioner was elected as member of Panchayat Samiti, and thereafter, again filed a nomination paper for election of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Jaswantpura on 07th February, 2015 and also won said election. Complainant raised a dispute regarding Petitioner's age, not being in conformity with Section 19(k) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and also documents submitted by Petitioner to have inconsistency regarding date of birth 2nd July, 1993 in one of document and 2nd July, 1996 in another document. Petitioner drew attention of this Court to orders passed by Court below in application, whereby amendment in date of birth, as sought by Petitioner has been allowed and a Tehrir regarding same has been issued, which is also on record. Petitioner further submitted that, in larger interest of justice, investigating authority should have considered all documents, which have been subsequently produced by Petitioner before investigating authority, even when investigation has been completed.

Apex Court in Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors., observed that, precedential ordainment against absolute prohibition for assignment for investigation to any impartial agency like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate the confidence of victim(s) and public in general in justice administering mechanism, is thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a measure however, can by no means be a matter of course or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live up to and effectuate salutary objective of guaranteeing an independent and upright mechanism of justice dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike.

Petitioner submitted that, in order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate confidence of victim and public in general in justice administering mechanism, is thus unquestionably permitted to make further investigation in any case on orders of Court. Law laid down by Apex Court in Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. applies in present case, as investigation has been completed, but in interest of complete and fair investigation and for enforcement of fundamental rights judged on touchstone of high public interest and paramountcy of rule of law, it would be appropriate to direct investigating authority to consider all documents that have been placed on record by Petitioner. High Court disposed of present petition with a direction to investigating authority to take all documents submitted by petitioner on record, and conduct fair investigation regarding these documents before re-filing of challan before competent court.

Relevant : Pooja Pal vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. MANU/SC/0071/2016


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved