Fair criminal investigation powers justify SIT direction; Section 156(3) proceedings do not bar writ relief.

A complainant or victim may seek directions for a fair and effective criminal investigation where the probe is delayed and remains directionless, and the writ court can intervene in such circumstances. The existence of proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC did not bar the writ remedy because a Magistrate under that provision has limited power and cannot constitute a Special Investigation Team. An accused has no right to insist on a particular mode or agency of investigation. In intra-court appeal, the Single Judge's order was treated as a possible view, and the direction constituting the SIT was upheld while the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to constitute a Special Investigation Team for the criminal investigation called for interference in appeal, and whether the existence of proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred the writ remedy.

Analysis: The investigation had remained incomplete for a substantial period, and the delay was found to be unexplained on the material placed. The Court held that a complainant or victim can seek appropriate directions for fair and effective investigation where the investigation is slow and directionless. It further held that an accused has no right to insist on a particular mode or agency of investigation. A Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has limited power and cannot constitute a Special Investigation Team, so resort to that remedy did not exclude the writ court's power to direct constitution of an SIT. The Court also accepted that the order of the learned Single Judge was a possible view and, in intra-court appeal, interference was warranted only if the order was clearly wrong.

Conclusion: The direction constituting the Special Investigation Team was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---