High CourtDivision Bench2012-01-12Appeal allowed.

Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012

Neutral Citation:[2012] 1 S.C.R. 195

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Asok Kumar Ganguly
T. S. Thakur
Judgment Date: 2012-01-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed to the extent indicated; directs the Additional Director General of Police, State CID, Pune Division, to order a proper investigation by deputing a senior officer, examine in detail the facts, and furnish a report to the trial court within three months; the investigation to commence within two weeks; High Court order set aside; matter to proceed in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Azija Begum

Respondents

State of Maharashtra
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Uday B. Dube

Counsels for Respondents

• Shankar Chillarge
• Asha Gopalan Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. concerns the propriety and independence of the investigation into the murder of Imran Khan. The husband’s body was found under suspicious circumstances; initially the wife lodged a missing report and later a First Information Report implicating the appellant’s two sons. The police conducted an investigation that the Magistrate later described as unsatisfactory, prompting him to direct further inquiry under Section 173(8) CrPC. The High Court, in a petition under Article 227, delivered a cryptic order that allowed the investigator to proceed by recording some statements and suggested the possibility of adding more witnesses, but did not address the merits or the issue of independence in investigation. The appellant argued that when the Magistrate was not satisfied with the investigation, the inquiry should be transferred to an independent agency rather than the same police authorities. The Supreme Court held that every citizen has a right to have his or her complaint properly investigated, an aspect of equal protection under Article 14 and akin to equal access to justice. It found the High Court order cryptic and insufficiently reasoned, and directed the Additional Director General of Police, State CID, Pune Division, to appoint a senior officer to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation and to furnish a report to the trial court within three months. The investigation must commence within two weeks, and the matter will proceed in accordance with law. The ruling reinforces that a fair and proper investigation furthers the ends of justice and upholds the rule of law.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, 1973, s.173(8)Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 227

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Right to equal access to justice.
Fair and proper investigation is conducive to the ends of justice.
Rule of law and maintenance of proper balance in law and order.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicant contends that although the Magistrate expressed serious reservations about the initial investigation and directed further inquiry, the High Court’s cryptic Article 227 order, by simply allowing the existing investigation to proceed and by inviting additional witnesses to the investigator, failed to meet the merits of the case. It was argued that, once the Magistrate was prima facie not satisfied with the investigation, the inquiry should be transferred to an independent body or to a different agency to ensure impartiality and public confidence in the process. The appellant argues that maintaining the same police authorities would perpetuate possible bias and compromise fairness. It was urged that the legal framework cannot be selectively applied and that the right to a fair investigation is anchored in Article 14’s guarantee of equal protection of laws and equal access to justice. The appellant sought an order directing an independent agency to conduct the investigation comprehensively, with the trial court receiving a detailed report and ensuring that the investigation is thorough, impartial, and capable of restoring faith in the process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petition achieved its purpose and the High Court disposed of the matter; there is no substantial challenge to the ongoing investigation at that stage. They argue that the writ petition under Article 227 was disposed of in terms that satisfied the remedial directions given by the Magistrate, and that there is no necessity to transfer the investigation to another agency. They assert that the existing investigation, subject to proper safeguards, is adequate and that the Court should not disrupt the ongoing inquiry unless there are compelling reasons. They emphasize deference to the executive’s police function and that the High Court’s order should be allowed to stand to ensure the continuity and efficiency of the investigation, while ensuring compliance with legal standards.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2012] 1 S.C.R. 195 # AZIJA BEGUM A _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012) JANUARY 12, 2012 B [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:_ - - _s.173 (8) Further investigation in_ a _murder case Held:_ c _When the Magistrate himself had expressed serious reservations about the investigation and had directed further investigation, it was expected of the High Court to look into the matter with greater_ care _and caution_ - _Additional Director .of Police,_ State _CID, directed to_ order a _proper investigation_ 0 _in the matter by deputing_ a _senior officer and furnish_ a _report to trial court._ ## _Constitution of India, 1950:_ - _Art. 14 Held: Every citizen has_ a _right to get his or her_ E - _complaint properly investigated The issue is akin to ensuring equal access to justice._ In a murder case, the wife of the deceased lodged an FIR implicating the two sons of the appellant The case of the appellant was that, prior to that, she herself had F lodged an FIR about missing of the deceased. She filed a petition uls 173(8) CrPC before the Magistrate whereupon a further investigation was directed. The appellant approached the High Court stating that when the Magistrate prima facie was not satisfied with the G investigation, further investigation should have been handed over to some other agency. The High Court disposed of the petition giving liberty -to the complainant 195 H ## 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R. A to bring some more witnesses which he felt necessary, to the investigator. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Every citizen has a right to get his or her B complaint properly investigated. This is a question of equal protection of laws and is covered by the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue is akin to ensuring an equal access to justice. [para 13) [199-F-G] c 1.2. In the instant case, the order of the High Court is very cryptic. It has not looked into the material facts of the case. It was expected of the High Court to look into the matter with greater care and caution, as a very serious offence had taken place followed by an investigation in 0[respect ][of ][which ][the Magistrate ][himself ][had expressed ] serious reservations but failed to give proper direction. [para 11) [199-C-D] > 1.3. The Additional Director General of Police, State CID is directed to order a proper investigation in the E matter by deputing a senior officer from his organization to undertake a thorou,gh investigation and examine in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and then furnish a report to the trial court. [para 14) [200-8-C] F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2011 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 356 of 2010. G Uday B. Dube for the Appellant. Shankar Chillarge and Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents. H .,C..ZIJA BEGUM _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 197 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **GANGULY, J.** 1. Heard learned counsel forthe parties. A 2. Leave granted. 3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a rather B cryptic order of the High court by which the High Court, with respect, disposed of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution without adverting to the questions involved. 4. The material facts of the case which are necessary for c us to consider for the purpose of disposal of the issues are that one lmran S/o Anwar Khan was found murdered under mysterious circumstances. His dead body was found on 22nd February, 2009 at the entrance of the Government hospital. Prior to that lmran was found missing and the appellant herein D went to the police station to lodge her First Information Report over that but the police sent the appellant back after recording a mere 'missing report'. Even though at that point of time, the appellant was said to have informed the police that lmran was allegedly kidnapped by one ljani Khan, but, the police recorded **E** a 'missing' report only. 5. After that as the appellant came to know that the dead body of lmran was lying near the entry of the Government hospital, she immediately went to the police station again and informed the police of this fact also. According to the appellant's version, the police, instead of recording her statement and registering an F.1.R. passed on the said information to one ljani Khan. F 6. Two days thereafter, the wife of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. and on that basis, investigation was undertaken and two sons of the appellant, namely, Jaffar Khan and Sherkhan, were arrested. G 7. The appellant not being satisfied with the aforesaid state H ## 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. - A of investigation-, filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials on record, passed a detailed order, the concluding part of which reads as under: - B "As the serious allegations have been made against police authorities as well as the present accused, in my opinion, further investigation is required because once police investigated the offence, then for the same offence separate crime as well as case number is not required. - c Therefore, in my opinion, further investigation is necessary. Hence I pass follow;ng order: ## ORDER _I_ - D P1 Jinsi is hereby directed to make the further investigation in the present offence and submit the report within time. 8. The main grievances of the appellant are that even E though the Magistrate was n9t satisfied with the way in which the investigation was proceeded and wanted further investigation to be conducted, but strangely handed over the investigation to the same police authorities about whose investigation the Magistrate was not satisfied. F 9. The appellant's contention is that once the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the matter was not properly investigated and required further investigation, the investigation should have been handed over to some other investigating agen::y. G 10. When the order of the Magistrate was challenged by the appellant before the High Court on the basis of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the said petition came to be disposed of by the High Court by an unusually laconic order: H AZIJA BEGUM _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 199 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] "1. Heard. At the instance of the applicant, since he A felt that statements of witnesses are not recorded, police officer has recorded statement of Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Daud, copy whereof is annexed to the report. If the complainant feels that few more witnesses are still left, he can bring such witnesses to the investigator and to ensure s to facilitate recording of statement. • 2. Purpose of the writ petition is achieved. Consequently nothing survives. Petition disposed of." 11. We ~re of the considered opinion that the order of the C High Court is very cryptic and the High Court has not looked into the material facts of the case. It was expected of the High Court to look into the matter with greater care and caution as ~ very serious offence had taken place followed by an investigation in respect of which th~ Magistrate himself had D expressed serious reservations but failed to give proper direction. 12. Lea,·ned counsel for the appellant submits t-efore us that the appellant wanted the investigation to be fairly conducted by an independent agency and urged before us for an order for the investigation to be conducted not by the same police authorities which had undertaken the investigation earlier but by any other independent investigating agency. E 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that F every citizen of this country has a right to get his or her complaint properly investigated. The legal framework of investigation provided under our laws cannot be made selectively available only to some persons and denied to others. This is a question G of equal protection of laws and is covered by the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue is akin to ensuring an equal access to justice. A fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing rule of law and maintaining proper balance in law and order. These H ## 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A are very vital issues in a democratic set up which must be taken care of by the Courts. 14. Considering the aforesaid vital questions, we dispose of this appeal by directing the second respondent, the 8[Additional ][Director ][General ][of ][Police, ][State ][CID, ][Pune ][Division, ] Pune, Maharashtra to order a proper investigation in the matter by deputing a senior officer from his organization to undertake a thorough investigation and examine in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and then furnish a report to the trial C Court within a period of three months from the date of taking charge of the investigation. The investigation is to be taken up within two weeks from the date of service of this order on the second respondent. The matter shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. We hope and expect an impartial D investigation of the case will take place. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. R.P. Appeal allowed.