Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010 WITH

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.17950 OF 2011 AND

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.15638 OF 2012  IN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21811 OF 2010  IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3212 OF 2008

Sushila Devi … Petitioner

Vs.

State of  Rajasthan & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These applications have been filed by the parties praying for monitoring of the  

matter in question, on one hand and the other parties seek that since the charge-

Page 2

sheet has already been filed, it is not necessary to continue with the monitoring  

of  the  matter  in  question  which  is  pending  before  the  Criminal  Court  for  

adjudication

2. Therefore, the sole question as it  appears to be germane at this stage in the  

matter is: whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as  

directed earlier, even after filing of the charge-sheet.  

3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:  

a) In January, 2006, the Rajasthan Police came up with a list of most-wanted  

criminals of Rajasthan which included the name of Dara Singh, the deceased  

husband  of  the  petitioner  in  Special  Leave  Petition  (Criminal)  

No.3212/2008. An award of Rs.25,000/- was declared on his head and on  

October 23, 2006 , it appears that he was killed in an encounter as would be  

evidenced from the subsequent FIR No. 396/2006 dated October 23, 2006  

registered  on the  complaint  of  Mr.  Rajesh  Chaudhary,  a  member  of  the  

Special Operation Group (SOG).      

b) In the FIR it was alleged that the deceased was equipped with sophisticated  

weapons and was killed in an encounter with the SOG after a gun-battle. In  

these  circumstances,  subsequently,  Smt.  Sushila  Devi  filed  a  complaint  

before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal  

2

Page 3

Procedure (hereinafter’ the Code’) seeking directions under Section 156(3)  

of the Code for registration of an FIR against the member of the SOG and  

alleged that Dara Singh was killed by the SOG. The Judicial Magistrate by  

an  order  dated  April  2,  2007,  issues  directions  for  investigation.  These  

directions were in conflict with the investigation under FIR No.396/2006.  

c) Thereafter,  Smt.  Sushila  Devi,  widow  of  Late  Dara  Singh,  filed  an  

application being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1015/2007 before the  

High Court of Rajasthan against the order passed by the learned Magistrate  

dated May 28, 2007, dismissing the application under Sections 157(1) and  

210 of the Code recording that the encounter, as alleged by Sushila Devi, is  

the subject-matter  of  FIR No.396/2006 which is  under  the process  of  an  

investigation.  

d) On August 2, 2007, the High Court issued notices to the respondents and by  

an order dated October 1, 2007, which is impugned in this petition, the High  

Court was pleased to recall its order dated August 2, 2007.  

e) In the said Special Leave Petition (No.3212/2008), an allegation has been  

made by Sushila Devi that her husband was killed in the said encounter by  

the Police officials of Special Operation Group, Jaipur on October 23, 2006  

and, hence, prayed for a direction to initiate a CBI inquiry in the matter. The  

3

Page 4

State of Rajasthan filed an affidavit and submitted that the Government had  

decided to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide  

their letter dated March 3, 2009. In these circumstances,  the matter came  

up/disposed of by this Court on April 8, 2009.  

f) Thereafter, Smt. Sushila Devi filed Criminal Misc. Petition No.13244/2009  

along with Criminal Misc. Petition No.13246/2009. This Court disposed of  

the said petitions on the ground that since the CBI has been directed to hold  

an investigation in respect of an offence alleged, no order need be passed on  

the said petitions. After complying with the orders of this Court, the CBI  

registered  Case  No.RC.2(S)/2010-SCU.V/SC-II/CBI/New  Delhi  on  April  

23, 2010 and took up investigation.  

g) During the investigation, another Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.21811  

of 2010 was filed in this Court by the petitioner, praying for monitoring of  

investigation  of  the  case  and  to  direct  the  CBI  to  place  the  findings  of  

investigation before this Court ahead of filing the same in competent court at  

Jaipur. This Court vide its order dated January 1, 2011 issued the following  

directions in the matter :  

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is deeply disappointing that the CBI has not yet completed   the investigation despite the order of this Court dated 9 th April,   

4

Page 5

2010. On the request of the learned counsel for CBI, we grant   two months’ further time to complete the investigation, failing   which  a  serious  view will  be  taken  by  this  Court  about  the   functioning of the CBI.

List on 8th March, 2011.”

h) From time to time, the matter appeared before this Court and two months’  

time was granted on March 8, 2011 to complete the investigation by the  

CBI. The State of Rajasthan was directed to co-operate with them. The CBI  

proceeded with the matter. In course of investigation, four of the accused  

persons were arrested on March 11, 2011 and remanded in Police custody  

till March 17, 2011. Subsequent thereto, two accused persons were arrested  

on May 15, 2011 and May 26, 2011.

i) The CBI on completion of their investigation filed a charge-sheet before the  

competent court on June 3, 2011, against 16 accused persons including the  

persons who were absconding at that point of time, namely, Arvind Kumar  

Jain,  Arshad  Ali,  Rajesh  Chaudhary,  Zulfikar  Ali,  Arvind Bhardwaj  and  

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. Investigation under section 173(8) of the Code was  

pending against one of the prima facie suspects, Mr. Rajendra Rathore, who  

was then a Minister in the Government of Rajasthan.

j) In  the  meanwhile,  one  of  the  accused  Satyanarayan  Godara  filed  an  

application for impleadment in the matter which was granted by this Court  

5

Page 6

on July 18, 2011. On August 25, 2011 charges against 10 accused persons,  

who were in jail  custody, were framed by the District & Sessions Judge,  

Jaipur. This Court on October 31, 2011 issued directions to the six accused  

to surrender before the trial court, in order to be eligible for legal remedy.  

Inspite of the same, only one of the accused being Arshad Ali surrendered  

before the Court on November 11, 2011.

k) Complying with the various orders of this Court from time to time, the CBI  

duly filed status report/s before this Court and on December 16, 2011, this  

Court directed that monitoring of the case will continue and further directed  

the CBI to file a status report by the end of January, 2011. Steps were also  

taken by the CBI as would be evident from the status reports filed before this  

Court.  

l) In an attempt to arrest the remaining five fugitive accused, cash rewards of  

Rs.10 lakhs on A.K. Jain and Rs.5 lakhs on others were declared by the CBI  

to motivate the general public to give information leading to the arrest of the  

said accused persons at large. After the rewards were announced, A.K. Jain  

surrendered before the court on February 27, 2012 and he remained in police  

custody  till  March  10,  2012.  Efforts  to  arrest  the  remaining  absconding  

accused continued.

6

Page 7

m)After completion of further investigation pending under section 173(8) of  

the Code, the CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 120B  

read with  Sections  302,  364,  346,  201,  218 and 193 of  the  IPC against  

Rajendra Rathore before the court on April  5, .2012. The C.J.M.,  Jaipur,  

took cognizance of the offence against the accused Rajendra Rathore and  

committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jaipur, Rajasthan. On May 31,  

2012, the Sessions Judge, Jaipur discharged the accused Rajendra Rathore  

from all allegations levelled against him. The CBI filed a revision petition  

before the High Court which was allowed on December 26, 2012 setting  

aside  the  order  passed  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,  Jaipur.  Rajendra  

Rathore was directed to surrender before the High Court and a charge was  

directed to be framed against him.  

n) In the meanwhile,  the accused A.K. Jain was committed to the Court  of  

Sessions by the A.C.J.M. Jaipur and the Sessions Court on May 1, 2012  

framed charges against him under the same provisions under which Rajendra  

Rathore  was  charge-sheeted  and  the  trial  remains  pending.  Two  other  

absconding accused, namely,  Rajesh Choudhary and Arvind Bhardwaj were  

committed to the Court of Sessions on August 13, 2012 and charged were  

framed against them on September 6, 2012.

7

Page 8

o) Furthermore,  on  June  30,  2012,  the  CBI  moved  the  court  at  Jaipur  for  

registration of an FIR under section 174A IPC against the four absconding  

accused persons. It was further stated that one of the absconding accused  

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary was found murdered on November 15, 2012 in the  

area  of  Police  Station  Ratangarh,  District  Churu,  Rajasthan.  It  is  further  

stated that an important witness in the case, i.e., Mr. Vijay Shankar Singh,  

Additional  Chief  Secretary,  the  then  Home  Secretary,  Government  of  

Rajasthan died in a road accident on December 3, 2012 at Jaipur.  

4.    Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in the  

facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary for this Court to monitor the  

whole case which is pending before the Court. Mr. Raval further submitted that  

if the investigation of the CBI and further monitoring of the case pending before  

the court is done, it would ensure that the trial is conducted fairly. Mr. Raval  

also submitted that considering the peculiar nature and the facts of this case, it  

is  necessary  for  the  Court  to  monitor  this  case.  He  also  relied  upon  the  

following judgments of this Court :  National Human Rights Commission vs.   

State  of  Gujarat  &  Ors.  [2009  (6)  SCC  767],  Centre  for  Public  Interest   

Litigation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.  [2012 (3) SCC 104] and  Jakia  

Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat [2011 (12) SCC 302].   

8

Page 9

5. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Sushila Devi, adopted  

the arguments of  Mr. Raval.

6. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf  

of the State of Rajasthan, supports the contention of Mr. Raval, learned A.S.G.  

Dr. Singhvi further pointed out that if the court monitors the case, the matter  

will be properly dealt with at every stage.  

7. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing in Criminal  

Misc.  Petition  No.17950/2011  and  on  behalf  of  one  Satyanarayan  Godara  

submitted that once a charge-sheet is filed, which is not denied before this Court,  

before a competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of such  

monitoring comes to an end. In the instant case, according to him, the CBI has  

already stated that they have completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet  

before the competent court. So, there is no need to monitor the matter which is now  

pending before  the  court  and the  competent  court  of  law would  deal  with  the  

matter relating to the trial of the accused including the matters filed under Section  

173(8) of the Code. He further contended that after filing of the charge-sheet the  

matter should be left to the court which should proceed with the trial in accordance  

with the provisions of law.  Mr. Patwalia further contended that the investigation in  

9

Page 10

the case was over on April 5, 2012. Undisputedly, a supplementary charge-sheet  

has been filed. It cannot be disputed that no investigation is pending in the matter.  

Trial has been going on and as many as 15 witnesses have been examined so far.  

The application which is pending consideration of this Court is Crl. Misc. Petition  

No.21811 of 2010 wherein the complainant has made a prayer for monitoring. He  

contended that the said application has become infructuous because monitoring of  

the case comes to an end as soon as the investigation is over. In support of his  

contention, he strongly relied upon Vineet Narain v. Union of India [1998 (1) SCC  

226], Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [1998 (8) SCC 661], Rajiv Lalan Singh  

“Lalan” (8) v. Union of India [2006 (6) SCC 613],  M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor   

Scam) v. Union of India [2007 (1) SCC 110] and Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of   

Gujarat [2011 (12) SCC 302], and drew our attention specifically where the Court  

came to the conclusion that  after  the investigation is  over,  there  is  no need to  

monitor the case.

8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, also appeared in this matter and  

contended that after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-  

sheet,  nothing remains to be monitored by this Court since the matter is  being  

proceeded before the trial court. He also relied upon the decisions cited before this  

Court  by  Mr.  Patwalia  and contended that  the  trial  court  should  deal  with the  

matter in accordance with the provisions of law.  

10

Page 11

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused  

the facts of this case.  We have noticed in  Vineet Narain’s case (supra) also  

known as the “Hawala Case” wherein a Bench of three learned Judges heard the  

various PILs regarding the investigations of the Hawala Scam run by the Jain  

Brothers  implicating  various  politicians.  This  Court   while  deciding  the  

procedure of investigation under the monitoring of the CBI, observed that:

“8. We  would  do  what  we  permissibly  could  to  see  that  the   investigations progressed while yet ensuring that we did not direct or   channel  those  investigations  or in  any other manner prejudice  the   right of those who might be accused to a full and fair trial. We made  it clear that the task of the monitoring court would end the moment   a charge sheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation and   that the ordinary processes of the law would then take over. Having  regard to the direction in which the investigations were leading, we   found it necessary to direct the CBI not to report the progress of the   investigations  to  the  person  occupying  the  highest  office  in  the   political executive; this was done to eliminate any impression of bias   or lack of fairness or objectivity and to maintain the credibility of the   investigations.  In  short,  the  procedure  adopted was  of  ‘continuing   mandamus’.   

10.In  Union  of  India  vs.  Sushil  Kumar  Modi (supra)  which  dealt  with  the  

investigation in the fodder scam, a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed  

thus :

“6. … It was made clear by this Court in the very first case, namely   Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) Nos.340-343 of   1993), that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after   completion  of  the  investigation,  the  process  of  monitoring  by  this   

11

Page 12

Court  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  CBI  and  other  concerned   investigative agencies perform their function of investigating into the   offences concerned comes to an end and thereafter it is only the court   in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters   relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within   the scope of Section 173(8) of the CrPC. We make this observation   only to reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any   quarter may survive. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of   the  High  Court  dealing  primarily  with  this  aspect  cannot  be   sustained.”

11.In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (supra) famously known as the “Taj Corridor  

Case”, two learned Judges of the three-Judge Bench wherein the third Judge  

gave  a  separate  but  concurring  judgment,  observed  after  referring  to  the  

judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (supra) which  

upheld the Vineet Narain Case (supra) that the monitoring of the investigation  

by this Court is only to ensure the proper and honest performance of its duty by  

the  investigating  agency  and  not  with  the  merits  of  the  accusations  in  

investigations,  which  are  to  be  determined  at  the  trial  as  per  the  ordinary  

procedure prescribed by law.

12.In the case of  Jakia Nasim Ahesan (supra) where the wife of a victim of the  

2002 Gujarat  riots  sought additional  investigation on the basis  of  additional  

material coming to light against the persons in power who were accused in the  

same, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while coming to the conclusion that  

12

Page 13

monitoring in the present case must come to an end, deferentially concurred  

with the aforementioned cases and observed thus :

“9. We  are  of  the  opinion  that  bearing  in  mind  the  scheme  of   Chapter XII of the Code, once the investigation has been conducted   and completed by SIT, in terms of the orders passed by this Court   from time to time, there is no course available in law, save and except   to forward the final report under Section 173(2) of the Code to the   court  empowered  to  take  cognizance  of  the  offence  alleged.  As   observed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.C. Mehta (Taj   Corridor  Scam)  v.  Union  of  India  [2007  (1)  SCC  110],  in  cases   monitored by this Court,  it  is concerned with ensuring proper and   honest performance of its duty by the investigating agency and not   with the merits of the accusations in investigation, which are to be   determined  at  the  trial  on  the  filing  of  the  charge-sheet  in  the   competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by   law.”

13.In the said decision, it was also observed :

“13. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [2008 (1) SCC 407], a question   arose as to whether after the submission of the final report by CBI in   the Court of Special Judge, pursuant to this Court’s directions, this   Court  should  examine  the  legality  and validity  of  CBI’s  action  in   seeking a sanction under Section 197 of the Code for the prosecution   of  some of  the  persons  named in  the  final  report.  Dismissing  the   application moved by the learned amicus curiae seeking directions in   this behalf, a three-Judge Bench, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.)   was a member, observed thus :

‘9. …  The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  to  issue  a  writ  of   continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is   carried  out.  Once  the  court  satisfies  itself  that  a  proper   investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take   over the functions of the Magistrate or pass any order which   would  interfere  with  his  judicial  functions.  Constitutional   

13

Page 14

scheme of this country envisages dispute resolution mechanism   by an independent and impartial tribunal. No authority, save   and except a superior court in the hierarchy of judiciary, can   issue  any  direction  which  otherwise  takes  away  the   discretionary  jurisdiction  of  any  court  of  law.  Once  a  final   report has been filed in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 173   of  the Code of Criminal Procedure,  it  is  the Magistrate  and   Magistrate  alone  who  can  take  appropriate  decision  in  the   matter one way or the other. If he errs while passing a judicial   order, the same may be a subject-matter of appeal or judicial   review. There may be a possibility of the prosecuting agencies   not approaching the higher forum against an order passed by   the learned Magistrate, but the same by itself would not confer   a jurisdiction on this Court to step in.’    

14. Recently,  similar  views  have  been  echoed  by  this  Court  in   Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [2011 (5) SCC 79]. In that case,   dealing  with  the  question  of  further  monitoring  in  a  case  upon   submission of a report by CBI to this Court, on the conclusion of the   investigation,  referring  to  the  earlier  decisions  in  Vineet  Narain  (supra),  Sushil Kumar Modi (supra) and  M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor   Scam) (supra), speaking for the Bench, one of us, (P. Sathasivam, J.)   has observed as under :  (Narmada Bai case (supra),  SCC p.  102,   para 70)

‘70. The above decisions make it clear that though this Court   is  competent  to  entrust  the  investigation  to  any  independent   agency, once the investigating agency complete their function   of investigating into the offences, it is the court in which the   charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating   to the trial of the accused including matters falling within the   scope  of  Section  173  (8)  of  the  Code.  Thus,  generally,  this   Court  may  not  require  further  monitoring  of  the   case/investigation. However, we make it clear that if any of the   parties  including CBI require any further direction,  they are   free to approach this Court by way of an application.’ ”

14

Page 15

14.After analysing all these decisions, it appears to us that this Court has already in  

a  catena  of  decisions  held and pointed out  that  the monitoring of  a  case  is  

continued till  the investigation continues but  when the investigating agency,  

which is appointed by the court,  completes the investigation, files a charge-

sheet and takes steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law  

before a competent court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to keep  

on  monitoring  the  trial  which  is  continuing  before  a  competent  court.  

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that since the investigation has already been  

completed, charge-sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not  

necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring of the case in question.

15.In  these  circumstances,  we  have  to  answer  the  question  in  the  negative.  

Accordingly, we direct that it is not necessary to monitor the matter in question  

any further since the matter is in the domain of the competent court. All the  

applications are accordingly disposed of.

……………………..J. (Surinder Singh Nijjar)

New Delhi; ……………………….J. September 24, 2013. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

15