1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.N.L.Ramnani for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No.1 - State. As the revision is pending since the year 2009, there is no option but to decide it finally.
2. The record shows disturbing history inasmuch as appeal was initially filed in the month of March, 2009 and, ultimately, it was dismissed for default in the month of December, 2009. Thereafter, pursuant to order dated 15.12.2009 i.e. just within a week, when main revision application is restored to the file by an order in Criminal Misc.Application No.13999 of 2009, practically, original set of revision must be available with the Registry and should be listed for further hearing at the earliest. However, it seems that right from 9.12.2009, no steps have been taken and it seems that only on 16.7.2013, some papers were collected by the Registry probably from some unknown source, since there is no clarity on record about the source of such documents when file was reconstructed for listing it before the Court. Such fact can be gathered from the first page/memo/covering pager of the Criminal Department whereby it can be confirmed that learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala has filed some documents on 16.7.2013 and, thereafter, matter was listed on 17.7.2013 before the Court. From 17.7.2013 till 8.8.2013, when matter was taken up for hearing, it was found that previous orders and papers of the revision were not available in the file. Some directions were given to re-construct the file on 8.10.2013, 27.3.2014, 4.4.2014, 28.4.2014 and 6.5.2014. Pursuant to such directions, office has submitted its report regarding non-availability of original record of main revision application and pursuant to direction to re- construct the file by placing papers, which are not available on record, now, the file has been re-constructed.
3. In any case, because of the position which is discussed herein above, the fact remains that the matter could not be taken up from December, 2009 till July, 2013 for no valid reason. Even after such re- construction, the original orders in revision could not be ascertained. However, same can be confirmed from the writ issued by this Court after such initial order dated 24.4.2009 whereby interim relief in terms of paragraph 10(ii) of the revision is granted making the notice returnable on 14.5.2009 when it is categorically recorded that reply filed on behalf of original complainant is to be taken on record. Therefore, there is a reason for tendency of such revision application for couple of years, which helps the petitioners - accused to get rid of the investigation and criminal trial against them inasmuch as though there is no clarity about confirmation of such interim relief after dismissal of revision application on 9.12.2012 and restoration on 15.12.2012. Unfortunately, neither the complainant nor even the investigating agency has bothered to inquire about the tendency of this revision, but, ultimately, by her letter dated 5.6.2013, complainant has applied under the Right to Information Act to know the status of revision and to verify that how much time will it take to re-construct the file and when the same shall be placed on the board of the Court. It seems that only thereupon office has initiated the process and listed the matter for further hearing. With her letter dated 5.6.2013 respondent No.2 complainant has annexed an order dated 18.1.2013 by the Public Information Officer of this High Court disclosing the order dated 15.12.2009 regarding restoration of the revision application and conveying that during classification and destruction work of the criminal matters in the year 2010 and 2011, the revision application was destroyed and, therefore, it could not be restored and placed before the Honorable Court. It would be appropriate for the Registry to be more vigilant and careful and to see that no such shortfall or shortcoming is repeated in any such matter, more particularly when there is an interim relief in favor of one of the parties, which is affecting the rights of other parties and in case like present, where further investigation of criminal complaint has been stopped for couple of years without the fault of the complainant.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is to be recollected that petitioners are original accused; whereas respondent No.2 is original complainant. They are referred in the same status hereinafter.
5. The complainant has lodged one complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gandhian on 16.12.2008, which is registered u/SS.447, 448, 427, 506(2), 380(2) and 114 of the IPC complaining that she is owner of the Plot No.3 in Ward No.6 of Gandhian, which is purchased by her through registered sale-deed from original owner Smt. Vandana J. Poptani after taking requisite permission and clearance from SRC Ltd. And Kandace Port Trust. Since there was no construction on such plot, it was protected by the baboon bushes hedge. However, on 26.11.2008, when complainant with her husband and Parmigiana Motivation as well as Jag dish Sandhill visited the plot, it was found that hedge was removed and on said plot one shade was fabricated whereupon one board in the name of Bacchanalia Printers was affixed and though no legal electric connection was provided on such plot, the complainants are carrying out their activity of printing press by using generator set without license and permission to use the same for such commercial and industrial purpose. When complainant and his colleagues conveyed the accused that they have committed criminal trespass and tried to grab her property and, therefore, they have to vacate the plot at the earliest, it is alleged by the complainant that a threat was administered to them by accused by saying that she may make complaint not only to D.S.P., but to I.G. or even may go to the Court, but nothing adverse would be caused to them (accused) and also threatened that if complainant ventured to look into the plot they would be cut her into pieces like Baal. It is further stated in the complaint that therefore on 27.11.2008 complaint was sent on fax No.02832250427 to the police. However, there was no progress and, therefore, Executive Engineer of GEB, Gandhian and local officers were also informed about the incident by sending an application along with complaint. It is also contended that a representation was made to the Honorable the Chief Minister and other officers of the Government of Gujarat. However, no fruitful purpose was solved. It is also stated that on 29.11.2008, a notice was sent to the accused persons by registered Post AD. However, they have refused to accept the same and, therefore, such complaint was filed before the Court on 16.12.2008. If we peruse such complaint, it becomes clear that complaint discloses relevant details regarding commission of cognizable offense by the accused persons and also the list of witnesses and material evidence to show that there is commission of criminal trespass by the accused persons, if they are not holding the possession by any lawful means.
6. On such complaint, considering the fact that initially complainant has sent a complaint to the police, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has though not proceeded further on such complaint, keeping it stayed or in abeyance pursuant to provision of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C., called for the report from the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anjar ('Dy.S.P.', for short) about their inquiry and investigation pursuant to the complaint forwarded to them by the complainant and to filed their report before the Court on or before 3.1.2009. Such complaint was registered as Inquiry Case No.149 of 2008. Pursuant to above direction, Dy.S.P. has submitted his inquiry report dated 3.1.2009 contending that there was oral agreement between the parties and plot in question was leased for Rs.1000/- for which there was no written agreement and that accused are in possession of the plot since the year 2001 soon after the earthquake in which their printing press on the adjoining plot was destroyed. It is further contended in such report that plot is being used for the purpose of storing damaged material of the press, accused have obtained the plot in question on lease through their friend Bhagwan Sangtani, who is husband of Vandanaben Poptani, the previous owner of the plot and that they have started the press in the month of March, 2008, but, since there was no connection of electricity in the said plot, they have installed a generator. It is also stated in the report that no legal connection or use of power has been made from GEB and no proceedings have been initiated by the GEB against them and that they are publishing Kutch Uday (daily newspaper) from the plot and intimation and declaration to that effect has already been filed before the Government. It is further stated that a civil suit was also filed by accused being R.C.S.No.350 of 2008 and that inquiry officer - Dy.S.P. has collected all the material during the course of inquiry and recorded statement of Vandanaben Poptani, Nimuben Motiyani (complainant) etc. and concluded that no criminal offence has been committed by the accused persons. Surprisingly the Dy.S.P. has relied upon the version of the accused to conclude that dispute is of civil nature and filed such report before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate. On verification of original report, it becomes clear that the concerned Dy.S.P. has not only misleaded the Court, but tried to disclose the facts, which are otherwise not correct and not available on his investigation papers when he stated that complainant Nimuben Parmanand Motiyani has given an application to remove the encroachment at her own cost and given abrupt statement. It is quite surprising and disturbing to note that an Officer of the rank of Dy.S.P. makes a statement in his report that complainant has given an abrupt statement and she simply wants to get the encroachment removed at any cost. Whereas with reference to the statement of Vandanaben Poptani (previous owner), Dy.S.P. has no option but to admit that Vandanaben Poptani has categorically stated in her statement that she and her husband has never leased or rented the plot to Gangaram Bhanushali of Kutch Uday Paper being accused No.1 though it is the defence of accused No.1. In that case, prima facie the statement of accused No.1 before the Dy.S.P. has categorically been nullified when accused No.1 states that he got the plot on lease through Vandanaben Poptani and when Vandanaben Poptani refused such story, at such point of time, instead of filing a report that no offence has been committed and matter is pertaining to civil dispute, the same Dy.S.P. being investigating office has to be careful and should continue the investigation further so as to arrive at a specific conclusion that whether possession of the accused are legal or illegal and amounts to criminal trespass. However, instead of investigating further in accordance with law, the Dy.S.P. has simply relied upon the statement of the accused that they have obtained the plot on lease and that they have preferred a suit to protect their possession. It would be discussed hereinafter that how such suit has been dismissed for default and thereby the accused could not even dare to prove legality of their possession when application for interim relief in such suit was dismissed by the accused civil Court by detailed judgment and order dated 17.11.2011.
7. However, at present, the impugned order is the order dated 7.2.2009 below Exh.1 in Inquiry Case No.149 of 2008 whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class has refused to accept the report dated 3.1.2009, details of which is discussed herein above and directed P.I of Gandhidham police station to inquire the complaint under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and to file the report and subsequent order dated 2.3.2009 when it has been brought to the notice of the Court that initially the investigation was carried by Dy.S.P. and not by P.I, Gandhidham, the Court has passed an order that investigation of complaint is to be handed over to the D.S.P., Bhuj instead of P.I., Gandhidham.
8. In light of above background, at present, the controversy raised by the accused is by way of challenging the order dated 2.3.2009 contending that the Judicial Magistrate First Class cannot direct any higher officer than the officer in-charge of the police station for which the Court has jurisdiction to investigate the complaint. Though accused are relying upon some reported cases wherein head-notes are supporting such stand of the accused, it becomes clear that practically accused are taking disadvantage of judicial process, procedural law and technicality so as to get rid of inquiry and trial against them for the offence of criminal trespass and grabbing of property of complainant. Before coming to the issue raised in the revision application, as discussed herein above, it would be appropriate to record the remaining part of the factual details from the record of this revision where complainant has filed several material as well as from the original investigating papers, which are called for from the respondent No.1 - State being investigating agency. If we start from the police papers, surprisingly it has altogether a different story to say, inasmuch as the factual details seems to be different than story narrated by the Dy.S.P. in his report dated 3.1.2009. It transpires from the police papers that pursuant to letter dated 27.11.2008, probably no steps have been taken by the local police and though complainant has categorically stated in her complaint that she has forwarded the letter to different authorities by fax also, the investigating agency has not even bothered to call upon all such papers from the concerned office or to inquire and to verify that what steps have been taken on such complaint, which is initially forwarded by fax on 22.11.2008 and, thereafter, on 28.11.2008 as well as on 29.11.2008. Unfortunately, the police file starts only from the date of complaint filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on 15-16.12.2008, based upon which M.Case No.25 of 2009 has been initiated as late as on 25.2.2009 i.e. after two months. Though report is to be submitted by them before the Magistrate on 3.1.2009 and in fact one report was already submitted by them on 3.1.2009, which is discussed herein above. Surprisingly, though report of Dy.S.P. is dated 3.1.2009, statement of some of the persons are recorded in the month of February, 2009 and even panchnama of the place of the incident was also drawn on 22.2.2009. Therefore, it is difficult to rely that how and why Dy.S.P. has forwarded a report on 3.1.2009 before the Court disclosing that no offence has been committed by accused and that the dispute is of civil nature. The police papers shows that statement of Indubhai Mohandas Sitlani is recorded on 26.2.2009, who is serving with SRC Ltd., which has given clearance for transferring the plot from Vandana Poptani to the complainant Nimuben Motiayani. Thereby, he endorses ownership of the complainant. Relevant documents are probably provided by him to the investigating officer. On 27.2.2009, panchnama of the property in question was drawn and statements of Bharatbhai Govindbhai Chauhan, Parmanandbhai Bhagwandas Motiyani, Jagdishbhai Sadhwani was recorded. Bharatbhai Chauhan is serving with accused in their press and, therefore, he simply states that press is functioning at the disputed property. Whereas Parmanandbhai Motiyani being husband of the complainant and his colleague Jagdishbhai Sadhwani, who were shown as a witness by the complainant have categorically supported the version of the complainant disclosing that how accused have threatened to kill them. They also confirmed the presence of the complainant at such time of threats by the accused. Some other statements were also recorded by the investigating officer, but, surprisingly, though suit was pending between the parties and though investigating officer has called for the status of such suit from the Civil Court, considering the fact that there is prima facie evidence atleast u/s.506(2) against the accused, all the accused have in fact filed an application for anticipatory bail before the competent Court being Criminal Misc.Application No.81 of 2009 wherein investigating agency has filed a detailed affidavit, office copy of which is found in police record, which is dated 9.3.2009 wherein now Dy.S.P. has narrated the entire fact of the complaint and contended that out of three accused, accused No.1 Gangarambhai Bhanushali has surrendered on his own, while remaining two accused are yet to be arrested and requested to reject the application for anticipatory bail confirming that accused have grabbed the plot of the complainant. The accused No.1 was arrested on 7.3.2009, whereas respondent No.2 was arrested on 19.3.2009. The police record also shows a letter dated 20.3.2009 by the complainant and her husband, addressed to the Dy.S.P. of Anjar conveying that though investigation has been ordered to be handed over to the D.S.P., why Dy.S.P. is investigating and inquiring that what he (Dy.S.P.) wants to do and disclose about the activities of his writer, namely, Laxman Ahir, on 27.2.2009, which is described by her in her affidavit in reply, which would be take care of while discussing the contents of affidavit in reply. The record also shows that statement of complainant was recorded on 2.1.2009 i.e. just before filing a report before the Magistrate on 3.1.2009 wherein complainant has not only supported the version in her complaint, but categorically disclosed that she has never sold or leased or rented the suit property in question to the accused. Judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 below Exh.5 application for interim relief in R.C.S.No.350 of 2008 filed by the accused No.3 Prakash Gangaram Bhanushali before the Civil Court at Gandhidham, Kutch against Vandanaben J.Poptani - original plot holder, Paramanandbhai Motiyani - husband of the complainant and Nimuben Paramanandbhai Motiyani - present complainant, is also found in police papers whereby such application for interim relief to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property was dismissed. By utter surprise, now, in said suit, which is filed on 23.12.2008, the accused is complaining about the threats being given by the complainant. However, for such threats, they did not lodge or file any complaint.
9. Thus, prima facie, the accused being present petitioners, are at advantage, may be because of their position as a press owner, publishing daily newspaper in the area and at the hands of others they are taking advantage of non-investigation of a crime, which they have committed against the complainant by challenging the impugned judgment merely on technical issues, as factual details are absolutely against them. Though no determination or finding is to be arrived at such revisional stage based upon factual details, the discussion herein above prima facie confirms that there is sufficient evidence against the accused to proceed further in the investigation and trial. However, all such discussions and observations are limited for deciding this revision application and it should not be treated as a final conclusion about such factual details since trial Court is certainly free to decide the issue after full-fledged trial and after recording evidence.
10. In sequence, if we now examine the record of the revision, which is re-constructed as aforesaid, it becomes clear that by filing reply on 22.4.2009, complainant has disclosed all material factual details before this Court and alleged that accused - petitioners herein have supressed various facts from the Court and that Dy.S.P., Anjar did not take any action despite repeated requests of her and, therefore, she was compelled to file a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and that even after Court's orders to investigate the offence by P.I., Gandhidham, the Dy.S.P., Anjar did not allow to investigate the complaint since he was interested to help the accused and, therefore, complainant had to address D.S.P., Bhuj for objecting the activities of Dy.S.P. and his writer and report the same to the Court whereupon the Court has to pass order to investigate the matter by Dy.S.P. Therefore, it is contended that there is nothing wrong, in such facts and circumstance, when by impugned order the investigation was directed to be carried out by D.S.P. The most material fact, which is disclosed in such reply and it leads to all such story is quite obvious that in fact accused No.1 is ex- policeman and, therefore, conduct of the police is self-explanatory by their inaction to safeguard him and, therefore, inquiry was conducted by Dy.S.P., Anjar from day one. It is further contended that even after inquiry was ordered to be initially conducted by P.I., Gandhidham and thereafter by D.S.P., Bhuj by the Court's order, the Dy.S.P., Anjar was repeatedly calling the complainant for no valid reason for which complainant has already conveyed them that Dy.S.P. is trying to damage her case. It is also contended that accused No.1 has suppressed the fact regarding his surrender and arrest. With such affidavit, relevant documents are annexed so as to support the statement on oath.
11. It seems that though delay in trial is certainly damaging the rights of the complainant, it seems that pendency of such revision as aforesaid, results into advantageous position of the complainant, which is disclosed by her by an additional affidavit filed on 21.4.2014 wherein now it is stated that accused No.1 is having chequered criminal history and being ex-policeman, he has committed several offences for which various criminal cases are lodged against him and thereby he is an habitual offender and has been misusing his muscle power. With such allegation, complainant has listed details of four other FIRs registered against accused Nos.1 and 3 and submitted that they are headstrong persons and have good links and hold over the local police and are in position to dominate the police investigation. With such affidavit, complainant has also annexed the copies of criminal complaints filed against accused Nos.1 and 3, which are as under:-
| Case No. | Name of the Complainant | Nature of offence | Accused persons |
| Inquiry No.20/09 (C.C.No. | Dinesh Deomal Harani | IPC Secs.192, 209, 387, 448, 449, 465, 467, 474 and 34. | Gangaram Bhanushali, Prakash Bhanushali |
| C.R.No.I 43/13 Dated 19.12.2012 | Samip Himmatlal Joshi | IPC Secs.341, 323, 506(2), 507, 114 | Gangaram Bhanushali, Prakash Bhanushali |
| C.R.No.II 3162/2012 | Mithubhai Geverram Chauhan | IPC Secs.504, 506(2), 507, 114 and Section3(1) Atrocity Act | Gangaram Bhanushali, Prakash Bhanushali |
| C.R.MAI/1999 | Bhagirath Singh N.Rana | Secs.10,15(2) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 | Gangaram Bhanushali |
| C.R.No.I48/2012 | Dinesh D.Harani | IPC Secs.307, 504, 323, 506(2) | Gangaram Bhanushali, |
13. Then comes the legal issue as submitted by learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala that considering the legal provision, the Judicial Magistrate First Class cannot assign an investigation to the officer higher than the officer incharge of the police station, which is within the jurisdiction of such Court. Thereby, when jurisdiction of the Court is limited to Gandhidham police station, then investigation cannot be ordered by the Magistrate to be carried out by D.S.P., Bhuj, but at the most he can direct the P.I., Gandhidham only to investigate u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala is relying upon following three decisions:-
1. State of Gujarat Vs. Parshottam Narsibhai Chauhan reported in 2001(1) GLR 913,
2. Central Bureau of Investigation, Through S.P., Jaipur Vs.State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in (2001)3 SCC 333 and
3. Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das reported in (2006)4 SCC 584.
14. In Parshottam Chauhan's case (supra), this High Court has while dealing with the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class cannot direct to investigate a complaint by Dy.Commissioner of Police. However, with due respect, it would be appropriate to recollect the provision of Section 156(3), which reads as under:-
"156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned."
The bare perusal of Sub-section (2) makes it clear that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate and, therefore, when in sub-section (3) Magistrate is empowered to order such investigation as above mentioned and then in my opinion, there is no bar on the Magistrate to direct the investigation to appropriate officer/agency considering the facts and circumstances of particular case. It is sufficient to record that if there is a complaint against officer or his near relative of the local police station, then, obviously such complaint is required to be investigated by some other agency rather than officer incharge of the same police station. Similarly, in the case of C.B.I. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also dealt with Section 156(3) and the phrase "officer incharge of police station" for holding that Judicial Magistrate First Class could not direct to conduct the investigation by C.B.I. Therefore, practically, the issue before the Supreme Court was altogether a different, wherein Magistrate has directed the inquiry to be conducted by C.B.I and, therefore, C.B.I has challenged such order contending that Magistrate cannot direct C.B.I to investigate. However, the Apex Court has though allowed the appeal of C.B.I., makes it clear that it would not prejudice any investigation to be conducted by the police station concerned in respect of the complaints involved in those appeals. Similar would be position in the present case i.e. irrespective of selection of investigating officer, the complaint of the complainant is required to be investigated properly and when there is an evidence that initially inquiry is done by Dy.S.P., there is nothing wrong if further investigation is handed over to D.S.P rather than P.I working under Dy.S.P. against whom there is allegation. However, on scrutiny of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it becomes clear that practically Supreme Court has conferred the powers of the Magistrate as restricted to order the C.B.I to conduct investigation u/s.156(3) because of specific provision u/ss.5 and 6 of Delhi Police Establishment Act. Whereas, so far as provision of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is concerned, what is observed by the Supreme Court is interesting to note since it is observed and held that though Magistrate u/s.156(3) can only direct an officer incharge of the police station to conduct such investigation and not a superior police officer. Nonetheless when such an order is passed, any police officer, superior in rank of such officer, can as well exercise the power to conduct investigation, and all such investigations would then be deemed to be the investigation conducted by the officer in charge of a police station. Section 36 of the Code is not meant to substitute the magisterial power envisaged in Section 156(3) of the Code, though it could supplement the powers of an officer in charge of a police station. However, the decision is certainly with reference to the powers of the Magistrate to direct the C.B.I to conduct the investigation in exercise of his powers u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the present case, when initially inquiry was carried out by Dy.S.P. and not by P.I of Gandhidham police station, there is no option but to direct the D.S.P. to investigate further when there are allegations against the Dy.S.P. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate cannot direct the proper officer to investigate the offence. Whereas, so far as the case of Shri Sankaran Moitra (supra) is concerned, it is not touching the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct the particular officer to investigate the offence. However, it is dealing with the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. since initially the Magistrate has stayed the proceeding of complaint under such Section. However, if we peruse the judgment of the Bench of three Judges, practically, the majority view is different than the discussion by the dissenting Single Judge and, therefore, observation by dissenting Judge, which are otherwise not touching the issue in the reported case are academic in nature and it cannot be said that because of such observation, as submitted by learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala that because of such discussion and observation by such dissenting Judge provision of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. is to be invoked in the present case so as to stay the powers of the Magistrate to pass an order regarding investigation of the offence once a complaint is inquired by the police based upon a direct complaint and report is filed by the investigating officer that no offence has been committed and this dispute is of civil nature. If we admit and follow such submission that in any case where investigating agency does not investigate properly, the right of the complainant to agitate the complaint and right of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence would curtail, which is not the settled legal position and, therefore, such submission is also baseless.
15. While concluding, I am relying upon few cases which are (1) Kedar Narayan Parida and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 386 wherein it is held that u/s.156 of the Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974) when any illegality and/or mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities, either on its own or at the behest of an interested party, is brought to the notice of the High Courts, the High Courts in exercise of their inherent and plenary powers are entitled to intervene to set right the illegality and/or mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities, (2) Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1804 wherein it is held that u/s.156 of the Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974) when earlier investigation by State Police agency was not done as per established procedure, Court is not precluded from appointing independent specialized agency like CBI to go into same issues, after filing of chargesheet by State Police agency. To meet ends of justice and in public interest, CBI directed to take investigation, (3) T.C. Thangaraj Vs. Engammal and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3010 wherein it is held that u/ss.482, 156 of the Cr.P.C (2 of 1974) in its inherent powers, High Court should have directed Suptd.of Police to entrust investigation to Senior Police Official. Moreover Magistrate u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has power to monitor investigation. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (se e Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. - (2008) 2 SCC 409). For these reasons, Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the Superintend of Police, Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu, will entrust the investigation of Crime No. 14 of 2006 to a police officer senior in rank to P. Kalaikathiravan and (4) Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2013 SC 2821 wherein it is held that accused alleged to be involved in enrichment by alienation of prime lands by use of deceptive means and by misuse of political power. When accused was man of means and can influence witnesses where investigation yet to be completed, it was held that releasing accused at such stage would not be proper and bail is liable to be refused. Court amongst other consideration has only to see that there is genuine case against accused and prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of charge.
16. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the present revision application and the same is hereby dismissed. Since the investigation is pending for couple of years, it is expected that investigating agency shall complete the investigation at the earliest and shall filed appropriate report in accordance with law before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham within 45 days after receipt of writ of such order.