CHANDER BHAN SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

256                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 256               [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A                         CHANDER BHAN SINGH
                                       v.
         CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2019)
B                              JANUARY 08, 2019
                             [N. V. RAMANA AND
                   MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Revision –
      Appellant-complainant filed a writ petition in 2002 seeking
C     registration of criminal case – His allegation was that his son was
      wrongfully killed by the police – CBI filed a closure report –
      Magistrate did not accept the closure report and took cognizance
      against 13 police officers-accused – Accused and the Government
      of NCT filed separate petitions under s.482, Cr.P.C. – High Court
D     allowed the petitions and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the
      point of cognizance and take a fresh decision on the closure report
      filed by the CBI – Magistrate reheard the matter and accepted the
      closure report – Appellant challenged the said order by way of
      revision petition under s.397, Cr.P.C. – After keeping matter pending
      for 2 years, High Court dismissed the revision petition of appellant
E     with liberty to approach Sessions Judge – Appeal before Supreme
      Court – Held: This case took place long back in the year 2002 and
      almost sixteen years have elapsed – It is ingrained in our criminal
      justice system that speedy justice should be provided to the litigant
      as a matter of a constitutional right – This is not appropriate case
F     for this Court to decide on the question of law considering the
      peculiar facts and circumstances involved – The question of law is
      left open and order of the High Court in revision petition is set
      aside and the case before the High Court is restored – High Court
      to hear the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order thereafter
      without any further delay – Delay/Laches – Revision.
G
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      30 of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2014 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Rev. P. No. 557 of 2012.
H
                                      256
      CHANDER BHAN SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                                 257
                  INVESTIGATION

     K. K. Rai, Sr. Adv., Tarkeshwar Nath, Chandrashekhar A.                  A
Chakalabbi, S. K. Pandey, Anshul Rai, Mukesh Hooda, Rajiv Choudhary,
Onkar Nath, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Pramod Dubey, Vivek Jain, Ms.
Suchitra Kumbhat, P. K. Dubey, Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ms. Supriya Juneja,
Aditya Singla, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Ms. M. Jaggi, Anoopam Prasad,               B
Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Santosh Kumar, P. K. Dey, Rishabh
Jain, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Priya Puri, Ranjay Dubey, Ms.
Vineeta M., Adv. Ms. Ranjana Narayan, T. A. Khan, B. V. Balaram
Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The following Order of the Court was passed:                            C
                                  ORDER
      1. Leave granted.
      2. This criminal appeal was filed against the impugned order dated
28.10.2014, passed by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the said Court         D
had dismissed the Revision Petition against the order rejecting the
cognizance, by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
       3. It may be relevant to note the chequered history of this case
spanning almost sixteen years. On 17.01.2002, the Appellant/Complainant
filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 70/2002, before the Delhi High Court
                                                                              E
against the State, Deputy Commissioner of Police and others seeking
registration of a criminal complaint. The Appellant/Complainant alleged
that his son had been wrongfully killed by the police
on 11.01.2002. The High              Court     of      Delhi, vide order
dated 30.01.2002, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”)
to register a complaint and investigate. CBI registered a complaint being     F
RC No. 2(s)/2002/SIC-IV/ND under Sections 218, 302, 201 read with
34 of IPC.
       4. The CBI, after completion of investigation, filed a Closure
Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Lt. Governor,
NCT Delhi did not find it to be a fit case to convey sanction for             G
prosecution. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, by order dated
06.08.2008, did not accept the Closure Report filed by the CBI, and on
considering the material before it, took cognizance against thirteen police
officers (“accused”). The accused were summoned, and the matter
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
                                                                              H
258             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A            5. Meanwhile, one of the accused filed Criminal Revision Petition
      No. 8 of 2009 challenging the order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the
      Magistrate, before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Criminal Revision
      Petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2009. Thereafter, the
      accused, as well as the Government of NCT Delhi, filed separate petitions
      under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code before the Delhi High Court
B
      against the order dated 06.08.2008 of the Magistrate and the order dated
      14.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal
      Revision Petition. By a common judgment dated 22.09.2011, the High
      Court allowed the above petitions, and directed the Magistrate to
      reconsider the point of cognizance and to take a fresh decision on the
C     Closure Report filed by the CBI.
             6. The Appellant/Complainant challenged the above decision of
      the Delhi High Court throughSpecial Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 87-90 of
      2012 before this Court, wherein the petition was dismissed vide order
      dated 12.12.2011 and upheld the order of the High Court with a direction
D     to the Magistrate to decide the matter expeditiously.
             7. The Magistrate reheard all the parties and by order dated
      24.05.2012 accepted the Closure Report of the CBI. The Appellant/
      Complainant challenged the order before the High Court of Delhi by
      way of a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C on
E     12.09.2012. After keeping the aforesaid matter pending for more than
      two years, the High Court, byorder dated 28.10.2014, dismissed the
      petition of the Appellant/Complainant, with liberty to approach the Sessions
      Judge. The High Court, observed as follows:
            “…this Court had noted that since the order had been passed by
F           the Magistrate, the next hierarchal Court is the Sessions Judge
            and although admittedly there are concurrent powers vested
            with both the Courts i.e. the High Court and the Sessions Court
            to entertain a revision petition but there being no special
            circumstance to bypass the forum of the Sessions Judge, this
            Court is of the view that it would be appropriate if the
G           petitioner first approaches the lower forum i.e. the Sessions
            Court and unless and until there is an exceptional
            circumstance, he may approach the High Court only
            thereafter.”
                                                          (Emphasis supplied)
H
       CHANDER BHAN SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                                   259
                   INVESTIGATION

       8. Initially, when this matter was placed before this Court, learned      A
senior counsels appearing on behalf of the parties had argued at length
and had taken us through various legal provisions and case laws pertaining
to the issue of concurrent revisionary jurisdiction under the new Code.
Moreover, the learned counsels had also sought a reference to a larger
bench to, once and for all, decide and settle the question regarding choice
                                                                                 B
of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
      9. Having considered the fact that this case had taken place as
long back as in the year 2002 and almost sixteen years have elapsed,
and that it is ingrained in our criminal justice system that we seek to
provide speedy justice as a matter of a constitutional right, we do not
consider this case to be an appropriate one to decide on the question of         C
law considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved.
       10. Having said so, we leave the question of law open, set aside
the order of the High Court dated 28.10.2014, in Criminal revision petition
No. 557 of 2012 and restore the case before the High Court. Further,
we request the aforesaid Court to hear the matter on merits and pass an          D
appropriate order thereafter without any further delay. If any party is
aggrieved with the order passed by the High Court, we grant liberty to
them to approach this Court again.
       11. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the High Court           E
is requested to consider all the points involved in the matter independently
and in accordance with law.
       12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                                                                 F
Devika Gujral                                              Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H