Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) A father of his deceased son moved this Hon'ble Court for making over the investigation in respect of the unnatural death of his only son to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
(2.) PRIOR to the present writ petition, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court with regard to the same incident complaining of no investigation into the death of his son. In the earlier writ petition an Order dated April 12, 2012 was passed directing the Director General, Crime Investigation Department to appoint a competent officer for investigation. According to the petitioner, such Investigating Officer submitted a final report before a Criminal Court stating that, the death occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the son of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a protest petition in such criminal proceedings. The petitioner also made a representation before the Director General of Police on July 16, 2012, and, thereafter moved the present writ petition. It was contended by the petitioner that, upon the present petition being filed an Order dated May 7, 2013 was passed requiring the Police authorities to submit a status report. The report filed in terms of the Order dated May 7, 2013 was considered. Various other proceedings took place in the writ petition. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the versions of the police with regard to the incident changed dramatically from the first report to the subsequent report. Initially the police sought to form an opinion that, the car in which the petitioner was travelling turned turtle. When such report was discredited by the Court, the Police authorities came with a version that, the car went from one lane to the other at a high speed crossing the divider between the two lanes on National Highway No. 2 and hit the metal beam crash barrier on the other side, as the cause for death. The last report was of the view that, the victim died due to his rash and negligent driving. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the directions contained in the Order dated April 12, 2010 were not followed in the last investigation. At least two points were raised in the Order dated April 12, 2010 requiring the Investigating Officer to explore those two angles while investigating into the cause for death. Those two angles were not investigated into by the Investigating Officer. The first angle was that, the car in which the son of the petitioner was travelling was impacted from the rear. The second angle was that, a co -passenger travelling with the son of the petitioner at the time of the incident and admitted to hospital remained untraceable. The first angle was not considered at all. On the second angle a third passenger was found in the vehicle by the Investigating Officer. Again no clarity as to the whereabouts of the two occupants the car and their relationship with the incident were appearing from the report. It was contended by the petitioner that the post -mortem report showed an injury on the left scalp of the victim. All the reports of the police claimed the petitioner to be driving the car. Injury to the left scalp of a driver in an accident of frontal collision was inconsistent. Photographs of the vehicle were placed to discredit the theory of the police in the last report. The nature of injuries noted in the post -mortem report was highlighted and such injuries were contrasted with the nature of accident claimed by the last report to have taken place. The nature of injuries noted in the post -mortem report, according to the petitioner was not consistent with the nature of accident claimed to have happened. In particular, the petitioner contended that, a vehicle travelling at high speed and driven by the deceased making a frontal impact would necessarily result in the legs of the driver being broken. The post -mortem did not speak of the bones of the legs of the victim being broken. The fact that, in the post -mortem report lot of grease was found in the body of the petitioner was also highlighted. The driving wheel was intact as would appear from the photographs. No viscera report was prepared. The petitioner also highlighted that, the car which met with the accident was sought to be taken delivery of by a person unknown to the petitioner and that there were two versions of the same order passed by a Court ordering release of the vehicle. The petitioner had obtained certified copy of such order to demonstrate such versions. In such context it was submitted that, an inquiry by the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) was required.
(3.) THE State authorities resisted the writ petition. It was submitted on behalf of the State that, a final report under Section 173 was filed with the appropriate Court in seisin of the proceedings. In as much as a final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was filed with the appropriate Court in seisin of the criminal proceedings, this Court ought not to direct further investigation and that, the remedies provided under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code were sufficient, effective and efficacious for the petitioner. Reference was made to Section 173 Sub -section (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and it was submitted that, the petitioner was not remediless. A judgment reported at : 1996 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases Page 582 (All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors.) was relied upon. Reliance was also placed upon : 2006 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 359 (Minu Kumari & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.) and : 2006 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases page 296 (Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police) for the proposition that the Court should not intervene when a final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the appropriate criminal Code.;