Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL   APPEAL Nos.961-62 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.3967-3968 of 2008)

MURAD ABDUL MULANI                               .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

SALMA BABU SHAIKH & ORS.                         .......RESPONDENTS

WITH   CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.963-64 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.4051-4052 of 2008)      

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.965-66 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.4130-4131 of 2008)

  O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. Through  the  instant  criminal  appeals,  a  challenge  has

been raised to the directions issued through the order passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2007 dated 28.02.2008 and 03.03.2008.  The operative part of the order, which is relevant to the surviving prayers, is extracted hereunder:

“42. In  the  above  circumstances,  though  the learned P.P. had strenuously tried to argue that the  matter  should  be  left  to  the  concerned authorities to conduct the necessary preliminary inquiry and to take appropriate decision, with utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the

Page 2

2

said suggestion. We find that the Police Officers who were entrusted with the investigation in the case in hand, who were expected to conduct the investigation honestly, sincerely and to the best of their ability, have not only failed to perform their  duties  accordingly  but  unfortunately  and shockingly their conduct reveal to be those of the  persons  acting  with  the  sole  purpose  of shielding the real culprit and allowing him to go scot-free and there was not even an attempt to collect the evidence which was to their knowledge available  and  could  have  been  collected  much earlier. An investigation officer who is required to  conduct  investigation  in  relation  to  a cognizable offence when intentionally avoids to collect the required evidence, or even fails to take  appropriate  steps  which  in  normal circumstances  any  investigation  officer  is expected to take, without any justification and explanation  in  that  regard,  then  the  only conclusion  which  can  be  drawn  is  that  the inaction  in  that  regard  was  deliberate  and intentional and with the sole intention to help the wrongdoers unless otherwise is established. Certainly, such an inaction on the part of the police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned.  It will send not only wrong message but  it  will  result  in  great  prejudice  to  the public and will hamper the process of law and lead to lawlessness.  The members of the public who approach the Police authorities with the hope and  expectation  that  the  wrongdoers  should  be booked for the commission of offences and should be punished, would stand to loose trust in the police  department,  if  such  officers  for  their serious inactions are allowed to go scot-free. Mere disciplinary action in that regard would not be sufficient answer.  Shielding or trying to shield any wrongdoer is itself a serious offence and assumes more seriousness when it is committed by  a  person  none  other  than  from  the  police department.   Therefore,  we  do  expect  the Government to take a serious note of this and to take appropriate action against the erring Police officers  and  personnel,  failing  which  the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court afresh. 43. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to take immediate action in the matter and in any case within twelve weeks, in accordance with the provisions of law for disciplinary action as well as for criminal proceedings against the concerned

Page 3

3

officers. The respondent Nos.9 to 11 to pay costs of  Rs.10,000/-  to  the  petitioner.   The  costs shall be paid from the personal account of those respondents  and  shall  not  be  a  burden  on  the Government treasury.  The costs to be paid within twelve  weeks.   Needless  to  say  that  all  the observations made herein above are in relation to the  conduct  of  the  investigation  officers  and shall not in any way weigh in the mind of the Courts  below  while  dealing  with  the  matter arising out of the FIR lodged in relation to the death of Yasmin. The action taken report should be placed before the Court within two weeks after twelve  weeks  for  necessary  further  orders,  if any, in the matter.  The rule is made absolute accordingly in above terms.”

When the challenge was raised with reference to the above order passed by the Bombay High Court, this Court, on the very first  day  of  hearing,  passed  an  interim  order  of  stay.  The aforesaid order has been continued till date, and as such, the above directions have remained unimplemented.   

It is relevant to record that the petitioner before the High Court, who is a resident of Mumbai, had two daughters.  One of the  daughters  –  Yasmin  died  on  17.01.2006  in  suspicious circumstances.  Yasmin who was then studying in the 10th standard is stated to have poured kerosene on herself and taken her life on 17.01.2006 in her own house.  The mother of Yasmin had alleged that Umesh Yallapa Arote, who had a one sided love affair with her daughter, was responsible for the death of her daughter. It was also her case, that the investigation being carried out by the Police Department, was not fair.  It is in the above background, that the High Court had passed the impugned order, incorporating therein  two  express  directions  in  paragraph  43.   A  perusal  of paragraph 43 reveals that the High Court had directed the State

Page 4

4

Government  to  take  disciplinary  action  against  the  officials entrusted  with  the  investigation  of  the  case.   Secondly,  a direction was issued to initiate criminal prosecution against the investigating officers.

It is not a matter of dispute that with reference to the death of Yasmin on 17.01.2006, Sessions Case No.745 of 2010 was registered.  On the conclusion of the trial thereof, the Ad hoc Asstt.Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by an order dated 17.06.2011, acquitted  the  accused  Umesh  Yallapa  Arote.   In  the  order  of acquittal,  the Ad hoc Asstt.Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, took into consideration, the issue of abetment to suicide, at the hands of  the  accused  Umesh  Yallapa  Arote,  and  recorded  a  finding thereupon, that there was no evidence on the record, that prior to the incident dated 17.01.2006, the accused Umesh Yallapa Arote, had instigated or abetted the deceased Yasmin, to commit suicide. In the above determination, the dying declaration of Yasmin was also taken into consideration.

The aforesaid determination at the hands of the  Ad hoc Asstt.Sessions  Judge,  Greater  Bombay  is  the  subject  matter  of serious  contest  at  the  hands  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondents i.e. the petitioner before the High Court.  It is his contention,  that  the  aforesaid  conclusions  were  based  on  the manipulation of the investigative process by the appellant before this Court.  

Having  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the directions issued by the High Court, and keeping in mind the fact that the occurrence took place almost a decade ago on 17.01.2006,

Page 5

5

we  are  of  the  view,  that  the  impugned  direction  contained  in paragraph 43 of the order passed by the High Court deserves to be modified.  With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we consider it just and appropriate to direct, that the  matter  in  question  with  reference  to  the  inappropriate investigation at the hands of the appellant in regard to the death of Yasmin (who committed suicide on 17.01.2006), be examined by the Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra. It shall be open to the rival parties including the complainant i.e. the respondents herein,  to  appear  before  the  Home  Secretary,  of  the  State  of Maharashtra, either in person or through their counsel, and place before him such material as is considered necessary.  The Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra, shall examine the material placed before him, and after hearing the rival parties, pass an order  whether  departmental  action  needs  to  be  taken,  and  also whether, criminal prosecution needs to be initiated against the appellant. A copy of the above order, will be furnished to the rival parties, without any delay.  It will be open to the aggrieved party, to assail the same in accordance with law.    

The  parties  are  directed  to  appear  before  the  Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra on 01.09.2015 at 11.00 A.M. The Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra, shall pass an appropriate  order  within  three  months,  from  the  date  of  first appearance of the parties before him.

Page 6

6

The instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.  

                        ..........................J.

              (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)                                       

    ..........................J.           (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI; JULY 21, 2015.

Page 7

7