AZIJA BEGUMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                    [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                       A

     GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel forthe parties.
     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      F
 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.
     6. Two days thereafter, the wife of the deceased lodged         G
 an F.l.R. and on that basis, investigation was undertaken and
 two sons of the appellant, namely, Jaffar Khan and Sherkhan,
 were arrested.
     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

    D        P1 Jinsi is hereby directed to make the further
             investigation in the present offence and submit the report
I            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      E
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.

     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.