SUSHILA DEVIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                 [2013] 10 S.C.R. 379


                      SUSHILA DEVI                             A
                             V.
           STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
 (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010 etc.)
                             IN
    Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008         8
                  SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
            [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
             PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
                                                               c
    Investigation - Monitoring of - By Supreme Court -
Investigation by CBI under the monitoring of Supreme Court
- Continuance of monitoring pleaded even after charge-sheet
was filed and trial commenced - Held: Monitoring is not
permissible after the investigation is complete and charge- D
sheet filed.
    The question for consideration in the present cases
was whether this Court should continue to monitor the
investigation, even after the investigation is complete.'and   E
charge-sheet is filed.

    Disposing of the applications, the Court

    HELD: The monitoring of a case is continued till the
investigation continues, but when the investigating F
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 G
before a competent court. In the present case, 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
                            379                                H
    380 ·      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   of the case, which is in the domain of the competent
    court. [Paras 14 and 15] (391-H; 392-A-C]

         Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1998 (1) SCC 226: 1997
    (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Union of India vs. Sushi/ Kumar Modi
B   1998 (8) SCC 661; M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union
    of India 2007 (1) SCC 11 O: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683; Jakia
    Nasim Ahesan vs. State of Gujarat 2011 (12) SCC 302: 2011
    (11) SCR 365 - relied on.

         National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat
C   and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 767: 2009 (7) SCR 236; Centre for
    Public Interest Litigation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
    2012 (3) SCC 104; Rajiv La/an Singh "La/an" (8) vs. Union
    of India 2006 (6) sec 613: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 - cited.

D                        Case Law Reference:
        2009 (7) SCR 236                   cited         Para 4
        2012 (3) sec 104                   cited         Para 4
        2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742            cited         Para 7
E
        1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595            relied on     Para 9
            1998 (8) sec 661               relied on     Para 10
            2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683        relied on     Para 11
F           2011 (11) SCR 365              relied on     Para 12

      . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
    Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010
                                   WITH
G
        Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17950 of 2011
                                   AND
        Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 15638 of 2012
                                      IN
H
    SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 381


        Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 21811 of 2010               A
                                     IN
        Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3212 of 2008
        From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2007 of the
    High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBC RM No. 1015 of 2007.       B

         H.P. Raval, ASG, R.P. Bhat, P.S. Patwalia, Dr. Manish
    Singhvi, AAG, S.K. Sinha, Seema Kashyap, Amit Lubhaya,
    Milind Kumar, Rajiv Nanda, T.A. ·Khan, Shriniwas Khalap,
•   Anando Mukherjee, Palash Kanwar, Divya Anand, B.V.                  c
    Balramdas, Abhishek Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rakesh
    Dahiya, Gagan Deep Sharma, Preeti Singh for the appearing
    parties.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                        D
        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-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             D
    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    E
    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       F
    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             G
    382     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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 Procedure (hereinafter' the Code') seeking
  directions under Section 156(3) of the Code for registration of
C 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.

D      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
E 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
F 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
G 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 State of Rajasthan filed an affidavit and submitted
  that the Government had decided to refer the matter to the
H Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide their letter dated
SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 383
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
March 3, 2009. In these circumstances, the matter came up/          A
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         B
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-ff/CBl/New Delhi on April 23, 2010 and took up             C
investigation.

      g) During the investigation, another Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.21811 of 2010 was fifed 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 ·D
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.
                                                                    E
     It is deeply disappointing that the CBI has not yet
     completed the investigation despite the order of this Court
     dated 9th April, 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       F
     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 G
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
                                                                    H
    384       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   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.

B         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
C   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
D   Godara filed an application for impleadment in the matter which
    was granted by this Court 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
E   to surrender before the trial court, in order to be eligible for legal
    remedy. lnspite 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
F   time to time, the CBI duly filed status reporVs 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
G   filed before this Court.

         I) 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
H   to give information leading to the arrest of the said accused
SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 385
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
persons at large. After the rewards were announced, A.K. Jain         A
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.

     m) After completion of further investigation pending under       B
section 173(8) of the Code, the CBI filed a supplementary
charge-sheet under Section 1208 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                C
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           D
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         E
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               F
Bhardwaj were committed to the Court of Sessions on August
13, 2012 and charged were framed against them on
September 6, 2012.

      o) Furthermore, on June 30, 2012, the CBI moved the court
at Jaipur for registration of an FIR under section 174A IPC           G
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.    H
    386     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D & Ors. [2012 (3) SCC 104] and Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State
  of Gujarat [2011 (12) SCC 302].

       5. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for
    Smt Sushila Devi, adopted the arguments of Mr. Raval.
E
        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
F 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,
G 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
H matter which is now pending before the court and the
SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 387
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
competent court of law would deal with the matter relating to        A
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 the case    B
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.     c
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     D
 v. Union of India [1998 (1) SCC 226], Union of India v. Sushi/
Kumar Modi [1998 (8) SCC 661], Rajiv La/an Singh "La/an"
(8) v. Union of India [2006 (6) SCC 613], M. C. Mehta (Taj
 Corridor Scam) v. Union of India [2007 (1) SCC 11 OJ and
Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat [2011 (12) SCC 302],
 and drew our attention specifically where the Court came to the     E
 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        F
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        G
accordance with the provisions of law.

     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
                                                                     H
    388       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   Case" wherein a Bench of three learned Judges heard the
    various Pl Ls 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:
B
          "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
c         task of the monitoring courl 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
D         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
E         short, the procedure adopted was of 'continuing
          mandamus'.

         10. In Union of India vs. Sushi/ Kumar Modi (supra) which
    dealt with the investigation in the fodder scam, a three-Judge
F   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 (WP.
          (Cr/.) Nos.340-343 of 1993), that once a charge-sheet is
          filed in the competent courl after completion of the
G         investigation, the process of monitoring by this 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 courl in which the charge-
H         sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to
SUSHILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 389
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

    the trial of the accused, including matters falling within      A
    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."                B

     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            C
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sushi/ 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   D
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   E
against the persons in power who were accused in the same,
a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while coming to the
conclusion that monitoring in the present case must come to
an end, deferentially concurred with the aforementioned cases
and observed thus :                                                 F

    "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 G
    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 H
    390       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         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
B         ordinary procedure prescribed by law."

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

        "13. fn M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [2008 (1) SCC 407],
        a question arose as to whether after the submission of
c       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 CBl's action in
        seeking a sanction under Section 197 of the Code for the
        prosecution of some o~ the persons named in the final
D       report. Dismissing the application moved by the teamed
        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
E
                 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
F                interfere with his jud~I functions. Constitutional
                 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
G                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
H                alone who can take appropriate decision in the
SUSHI LA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 391
          [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
            matter one way or the other. If he errs while              A
            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 or(jer
            passed by the learned Magistrate, but the same             B
            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 C
     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),
     Sushi/ Kumar Modi (supra) and M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor
     Scam) (supra), speaking for the Bench, one of us, (P. D
     Sathasivam, J.) has observed as under : (Narmada Bai
     case (supra), sec p. 102, para 70)

             '70. The above decisions make it clear that though
             this Court is competent to entrust the investigation      E
             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        F
             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          G
             approach this Court by way of an application.' "

     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       H
    ·. 392   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A 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 c_ontinuing before a competent court. Accordingly, we are of ·
B the opinion that since the investigation has already been
  completed, charge-sheet t)as 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.
C 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.

D K.K.T.                               Applications disposed of.