- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) Through the instant criminal appeals, a challenge has been raised to the directions issued through the order passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2007 dated 28.02.2008 and 03.03.2008. The operative part of the order, which is relevant to the surviving prayers, is extracted hereunder: "42. In the above circumstances, though the learned P.P. had strenuously tried to argue that the matter should be left to the concerned authorities to conduct the necessary preliminary inquiry and to take appropriate decision, with utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the said suggestion. We find that the Police Officers who were entrusted with the investigation in the case in hand, who were expected to conduct the investigation honestly, sincerely and to the best of their ability, have not only failed to perform their duties accordingly but unfortunately and shockingly their conduct reveal to be those of the persons acting with the sole purpose of shielding the real culprit and allowing him to go scot-free and there was not even an attempt to collect the evidence which was to their knowledge available and could have been collected much earlier. An investigation officer who is required to conduct investigation in relation to a cognizable offence when intentionally avoids to collect the required evidence, or even fails to take appropriate steps which in normal circumstances any investigation officer is expected to take, without any justification and explanation in that regard, then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the inaction in that regard was deliberate and intentional and with the sole intention to help the wrongdoers unless otherwise is established. Certainly, such an inaction on the part of the police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned. It will send not only wrong message but it will result in great prejudice to the public and will hamper the process of law and lead to lawlessness. The members of the public who approach the Police authorities with the hope and expectation that the wrongdoers should be booked for the commission of offences and should be punished, would stand to loose trust in the police department, if such officers for their serious inactions are allowed to go scot-free. Mere disciplinary action in that regard would not be sufficient answer. Shielding or trying to shield any wrongdoer is itself a serious offence and assumes more seriousness when it is committed by a person none other than from the police department. Therefore, we do expect the Government to take a serious note of this and to take appropriate action against the erring Police officers and personnel, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court afresh. 43. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to take immediate action in the matter and in any case within twelve weeks, in accordance with the provisions of law for disciplinary action as well as for criminal proceedings against the concerned officers. The respondent Nos.9 to 11 to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. The costs shall be paid from the personal account of those respondents and shall not be a burden on the Government treasury. The costs to be paid within twelve weeks. Needless to say that all the observations made herein above are in relation to the conduct of the investigation officers and shall not in any way weigh in the mind of the Courts below while dealing with the matter arising out of the FIR lodged in relation to the death of Yasmin. The action taken report should be placed before the Court within two weeks after twelve weeks for necessary further orders, if any, in the matter. The rule is made absolute accordingly in above terms.";