TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile of the Assistant Sessions Judge in the Court of Additional Special Court cases related to elected members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 2. This Criminal Original Petition in Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. R. Sahayarajan to call for all the records in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Member of legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and quash the same. 3. This Criminal Original Petition in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. Devasagayam to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.24 of 2021 pending on the file of Additional Special Court for the Trial of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, Chennai and direct the respondent to conduct a de-novo reinvestigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 4. This Criminal original Petition in Crl. O.P. No.6621 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. M. Vetrichelvan to call for the records in the FIR, Final report in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of Criminal Cases, related to elected M.P's and M.L.As of Tamil Nadu, Chennai an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013 dated 09.06.2014, issued directions to all the Government Departments to make appointments by issuing open advertisement in newspaper and media and also to notify the District Employment Office. 13. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department vide its letter dated 30.07.2014 directed all the Managing Directors of the State Transport Corporation undertakings to follow the directions of the Division Bench in the process of recruitment. 14. Notification for open recruitment was issued by the Managing Director of MTC and other officials of MTC. Simultaneously, category wise sponsored lists were called for from the District Employment Offices of Chennai, Thiruvallur and Kanchipuram. 15. In the process, a total number of 16,081 applications were received, out of which, 12,765 candidates attended interview and 2209 appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. 16. Now, The Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, Mr.V.Senthil Balaji was then functioning as Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Minister at Selvi J.Jayalalithaa's Cabinet in 2014. 17. In the said appointm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 06.07.2016, the second complaint was given. The second complaint dated 26.12.2016 is a motivated one. 3. As per the FIR, the alleged occurrence took place between the period from 21.12.2014 to 10.01.2015, for which, the FIR was registered on 09.09.2017 with a delay of two years and eight months and the delay would vitiate the entire proceedings. 4. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the petitioner has nothing to do with the appointments and he is not an appointing authority but the board of appointment committee alone empowered to make appointments from the eligible candidates participated in the interview. The petitioner cannot be held responsible or prosecuted for the act of some unknown persons or third parties. The petitioner never met any victims and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant himself has collected money from various individuals. There is no material to show that the petitioner received any amount from them and to connect the petitioner to the alleged cash-for- job scam. 5. The learned counsel further contended that the statement of witnesses would show that receiving of money was between other persons o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....19 of 2020. Now, the parties to the criminal proceedings settled the dispute out of the Court amicably. Irrespective of the fact of such offence, this Court may, within the frame work of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceedings or criminal complaint or FIR, if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 4. The learned counsel to support his argument placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court cases 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466 Thus, pleaded to allow this Criminal Original Petition and quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 pending on the file of the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Member of legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 21. The argument of the learned counsel in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 (C.C.No.24 of 2021) 1. The learned counsel Mr.Sriram Panchu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tan Magistrate Court for CCB and CBCID (Metro Cases Chennai) on 13.06.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 460, 420 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons namely, A1 Baskar, A2 Kesavan, A3 Palani, A4 Elumalai, A5 Sridhar, A6 Manokaran, A7 Manivannan, A8 Selvaraj, A9 Ramesh, A10 Udhayakumar, A11 Lalith Lulla, and A12 Liyakat Ali Khan. The final report filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial for CCB and CBCID (Metro) Cases, Egmore, Chennai, vide C.C.No.3627 of 2017 was taken cognizance on 20.06.2017. 5. Thereafter, another victim Mr.R.B.Arun Kumar filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No.32067 of 2019 before this Court seeking direction to the police to conduct further investigation in Crime No.441 of 2015 in C.C.No.3627 of 2017 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID (Metro) Cases, Chennai. This Court vide its order dated 27.11.2019 directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (Job Racket Wing) to conduct further investigation of the case and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible within 6 months. The police, after further investigation, filed a final report against 47 persons for the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi 1955 AIR 196. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a principle for possibility of further and de-novo investigation even after a Court had taken cognizance of the case in the interest of preventing miscarriage of justice. Further, contended that the statement of the petitioner as a complainant cannot be brushed aside and ignored by the investigating agency. The statement of the petitioner as a complainant is more important and pertinent to real trial but the investigating agency has completely ignored the case of the petitioner and diverted itself to some other irrelevant issues with ulterior motive, for which, the petitioner cannot be a new spectator. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is a duty of the petitioner to bring it to the knowledge about his own grievance in the case as per the settled proposition of law. 10. Further submitted that this Court, while admitting the Criminal Original Petition recorded that the investigation in this case was conducted in a deficit manner and the petitioner's grievance ought to be redressed, finds there is a prima facie case made in favour of the petitioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Magistrate must issue notice to the defacto complainant. On receipt of such notice, the defacto complainant has got right to file a petition known as 'protest petition'. Only after hearing him, the learned Magistrate has to pass an order either accepting the final report in its entirety or rejecting the same and to proceed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials on record and the Court can direct further investigation or to treat the protest petition as a complaint in terms of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 14. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another AIR 1985 SC 1285 followed in Union Public Service Commission Vs. S.Papaiah and others, AIR 1997 SC 3876 and relied the proposition that on the mandatary requirement not being fulfilled, the entire process of takingup cognizance will be vitiated. 15. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others in (2012) 7 SCC 407 and also contended that the basic purpose of an investigation is to brin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer in the Department of Information, Tamil Nadu. In 2010, he was promoted as Public Relations Officer in the same department. Following recommendation to serve in the State Transport Department, the petitioner functioned in Metropolitan Transport Corporation as Public Relations Officer, first from 16.11.2012 to 26.06.2013 and thereafter from 2014 to 31.07.2015. In 2020, the petitioner was promoted as Joint Director in the Information and Public Relations Department, in which post he is currently working. 2. While so, one Devsahayam, the 3rd respondent in this Crl.O.P, preferred a complaint on 08.05.2015 to the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. The gist of that complaint for cheating is that large sums of money were received by several persons on the representation that jobs would be secured in the Transport Department. The allegations were that the persons involved in cheating had played fraud and appropriate action be taken against the individuals. The complaint was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the Inspector of Police, (Job racketing wing), Central Crime Branch. A case in Cr.No.441 of 2015 for offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 Indian Penal Code was regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent handed over to the petitioner an acknowledgement which described the petitioner as a suspect and stated he appeared for enquiry. The acknowledgement is in page No.31 of the 1st typed set. 8. Thereafter, in March 2021 the petitioner came to know that steps were on the anvil to prosecute him for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code and for this Purpose the Commissioner of Police had addressed letter to Government seeking sanction for prosecution. It also came to light that on 05.03.2021 Secretary to Government passed orders granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and another person. The said order had come into public domain which enabled the petitioner to access the same. 9. Further contended that the petitioner no way connected with the cash-for-Job Scam and the Prevention of Corruption Act 17 (a) came into effect on 26.07.2018. The application of Section 17 (a) P.C.Act in this case is unsustainable. Though the alleged offences had been committed allegedly in the year 2014-2015 and action against the petitioner commenced only in September 2020. The investigating Agency had not followed the mandate in Section 17 (a) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on incompatible with the provisions of the section that stood prior to the amendment. Further, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act only saves legal proceedings instituted before the repeal of the provision in respect of offence committed during the time when the provision was in force and not substituted provisions. It is further submitted that Sec 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves amendment by Substitution of any Central Act only if the intention of the new provision is not different. The ingredients of the new sec 13(1) and the erstwhile sec 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are being completely different, the institution of prosecution for offence under 13(1)(d) of the Act after 26.07.2018 is not permissible and thus, pleaded to quash the criminal proceedings in the Criminal Original Petition. 23. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner (Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner have filed two Crl.M.P.Nos.12532 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12528 of 2022 to implead them as a party in Crl.O.P.Nos.13914 of 2021 and in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 respectively. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e scheduled offence, they are having jurisdiction to conduct investigation and further contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a special statute and separate offence. Since a stay has been granted in respect of the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2022 and C.C.No.24 of 2022 are concerned, the department is not in a position to proceed against the accused. Hence, the department has to be impleaded in the quash proceedings and pleaded to dismiss the quash proceedings filed by the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 and also contended that denovo investigation is not required as the case is already investigated and filed a detailed final report. Therefore, seeking de-novo investigation trial is also not sustainable and pleaded to dismiss the Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 and thus, pleaded to implead them as a party to the proceedings. 24. The argument placed by the learned counsel appearing for Anti Corruption Movement Rep.by its Central Secretary in the impleading petitions. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.10504 of 2021, 10808 of 2021 and 10818 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s committed perjury as well as criminal contempt of this Court and liable to be punished for the same and in another Crl.O.P., prayer for seeking quashment of charges and direction for de-novo enquiry is unsustainable. 5. The Criminal Revision filed by Mr.V.Senthil Balaji is also unsustainable. The criminal original petition filed by R.Sahayarajan for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the ground of compromise is also unsustainable and Crl.M.P.No.9398 of 2021 filed by Gobi is attempting to commit fraud upon this Court, the petitioner has to be impleaded in the interest of justice. If the petitioner is not impleaded in the petition, this Court will be left out without any assistance which may result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, pleaded to implead the petitioner as one of the respondent in the abovesaid Criminal Revision Case and Criminal Original Petitions and thus, pleaded to allow these criminal miscellaneous petitions. 25. The argument of the learned counsel in impleading petitions namely, Crl.M.P.Nos.10209 of 2021, 10210 of 2021 & 11925 of 2021 filed by Dharmaraj & Nambi Venkatesh in Crl.O.P.Nos.13914 of 2021 and 15122 of 2021 respecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Transport Corporation undertakings and he fulfill all requisite qualification for the said post. He also applied for the post of Junior Engineer by his application No.JI 402261 and also participated in the interview but he was not selected and he was informed that he had only secured 47 marks. Thereafter through newspaper he also came to know about the registration of three complaints against the Minister as well as Transport Corporation officials. He also filed writ petition in W.P.No.9061 of 2021 before this Court seeking to quash the selection of candidates and their appointments as Junior Engineer in MTC, pursuant to the recruitment notice in 2014. He also gave statement before the Assistant Commissioner of police during the time of investigation of case in Crime No.441 of 2015 in C.C.No.24 of 2021, he is arrayed as one of the prosecution witnesses as LW87 in C.C.No.24 of 2021. Under the above circumstances, the complainant and the accused colluded with each other and filed this case to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l report, which was taken on file in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on 08.01.2020. 2. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the further investigation was not conducted properly. The facts of the case are that the police has investigated into the allegations of irregularities in the selection of large number of candidates for the post at State Transport Corporation. The respondent police seized the register used for entering the interview marks and sent it for Forensic Analysis in order to find out the manipulations but without getting report from the Forensic Department filed the final report improperly. They have examined witnesses as a formality. In support his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel cited the para - 10 of the affidavit filed by Mr.S.Surendaran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB (Job Racket Wing) in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.8249 of 2021. The learned counsel further contended that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the investigation is not fair and transparent. The Investigating Agency cannot be permitted to conduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ird complaint is given by one Mr.Arul Mani, which is registered in FIR No.344 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 420 and 506(i) IPC. Final report is filed in C.C.No.25 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 405, 420 and 506(i) IPC. 30. In C.C.No.19 of 2020, the accused Mr.V.Senthil Balaji, had filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.7968 of 2020 before the trial Court, which was dismissed by passing the impugned order dated 26.08.2020, which is under challenge now in Crl.R.C.No.224 of 2021. 31. With regard to the abovesaid criminal case in C.C.No.19 of 2020 one of the accused Mr.Sahayarajan (A3) filed a Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 to quash the abovesaid criminal proceedings on the ground that the offence in the case is compoundable besides he had settled the dispute with the defacto complainant Mr.Ganesh Kumar and other Victims connected with the complaint in FIR No.298 of 2017. 32. With regard to C.C.No.24 of 2021 (Crime No.441 of 2015) one of the accused Mr.Vetrichelvan (A10) filed Crl.O.P.6621 of 2021 to quash the abovesaid criminal proceedings against him on the ground that he was only a Public Relation Officer and not participated in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1514 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022) ( P.Dharmaraj Vs. Shanmugam & Ors.) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2021 by this Court order dated 30.07.2021 in Crl. O.P. No.13374 of 2021 filed by Mr.Shanmugam (A3) in C.C.No.25 of 2021. Further held that the remaining two criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 are also with corruption allegation and all criminal complaints arose out of the very same cash-for-job scam as a matter of fact the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam. 38. In view of the abovesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.25 of 2021, the judgment has directed bearing upon this remaining two criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021. 39. Criminal Revision Petition No.224 of 2021 The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner challenged the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.7968 of 2020 in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the ground that the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions and various decisions of the Supreme Court, summarised the position in paragraph - 61 of its decision, is as follows: "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s tainted with inconsistencies, contradictions and infractions, Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. No doubt, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act committed by the public servants was not included but the nature of the offence alleged in the complaint is cash-for-job scam, therefore, it is not a fit case for quash even though the victims, the complainants and the offenders have settled the dispute. The nature of the offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on Society, therefore, I find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners besides I find no good reason for quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.19 of 2020 against the petitioner and no merit in the criminal O.P.No.13914 of 2021, hence, dismissed. 46. Criminal Original Petition No. 6621 of 2021. The petitioner Mr.Vetrichelvan is the 10 th accused in C.C.No.24 of 2021(Crime No.441 of 2015). The petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021 against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner contention is that the petitioner was working as Public Relation Officer from 16.11.2012 to 26.06.2013 and from 2014 to 31.07.2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the acquisition made against accused would not be sustained. 49. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in " Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.K.Sehgal" - MANU/SC/0650/1999; (1999) 8 SCC 501. The necessity of a sanction is only as a filter to safeguard public servants from frivolous or malafide or vindictive prosecution. Therefore, the issue of sanction for prosecution would be tested at the time of trial. 50. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. "The State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal" 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426. 51. An overall perusal of the material placed before me makes out no good ground in favour of the petitioner /accused Vetrichelvan (A10) for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021. At this stage, this Court cannot analysis and meticulously considered the evidence and anticipate whether it will end up in conviction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied out, where after, an additional charge sheet was filed against 47 accused in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 54. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that all the persons involved in the cash-for-job scam are not named, particularly, the FIR named accused persons namely, Mr.Baskar and Mr.Kesavan were dropped by the investigating officer without notice to the complainant Mr.Devasagayam, which is in violation of law declared by the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Sing Vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285, the Supreme Court decision in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Papaiah AIR 1997 SC 3876 and also against the principle stated by our High Court in C.Ve.Shanmugam S/o.Venugopal Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2010 2 MLJ criminal page 833. 55. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the investigating agency seized the register used for entering the interview marks and forwarded to Forensic Department for analysis in order to decipher the manipulations but so far not received the report from the Forensic Department without knowing the result of the report with the formal statement recorded from the stack witnesses filed the final report unfairly. The learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on a futile exercise. 58. I have considered the submission of the learned Senior Counsel in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the final report. 59. As mentioned earlier, all the three criminal complaints in FIR No.441 of 2015 (C.C.No.24 of 2021); FIR No.298 of 2017 (C.C.No.19 of 2020); FIR No.344 of 2018 (C.C.No.25 of 2021) are inter connected with cash-for-job scam in the same recruitment to the post at State Transport Corporation during the year 2014-2015. 60. It is to be noted that only in C.C.No.24 of 2021 (Crime No,.441 of 2015) the investigating agency in the final report/charge sheet charged the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the remaining two criminal cases in C.C.No.19 of 2020 & in C.C.No.25 of 2021) not charged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This fact was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022) (P.Dharmaraj Vs. Shanmugam & Ors.) and directed to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.25 of 2021. 61. As per the further fact of the case, it would be beyond doubt that the matter in question is interconnected with the matter in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 67. To eliminate any impression of bias and avoid erosion of credibility of investigation, I am of the view that all the three criminal cases in C.C.No.19 of 2020, C.C.No.24 of 2021 and C.C.No.25 of 2021 the State ought to have taken a comprehensive reinvestigation /de-novo investigation, keeping in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court already ordered further investigation in the criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2021. Further, the case is also not before me, therefore, I am confined with the cases before me i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 alone. 68. It cannot be disputed that even after filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance by the Court, the police has ample power to investigate further the crime. Since the ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether offence alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it. 69. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of "Rishbud Vs.State of Delhi" MANU/SC/0049/1954 has observed that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance of the case has been taken by the Court and further investigation can be ordered even after the charge sheet is submitted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice so that the truth is revealed. The power may also be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice direct de novo investigation as observed in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0643/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 254. A fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair. . . . .. " 76. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and other (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 182, while considering Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. observed that the language of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for fresh investigation or reinvestigation if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or reinvestigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 77. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021 and 10909 of 2021. 1. Victim participatory rights are currently recognized as an important component of criminal justice proceedings. 2. Who is victim " is defined in criminal procedure code under Section 2(wa), It is inserted by Act 5 of 2009 (Section 2) with effect 31.12.2009, it is as follows: "2.. . . . . (wa) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir;" 3. In medical negligence claim, the law draws a distinction between primary and secondary victims. A primary victim is the patient, who has suffered the alleged negligence; secondary victim is a person, who suffers injury, as a result of the negligence suffered by the primary victim. 83. In this case, the petitioners viz., Mr.Nambi Venkatesh, Mr.Dharmaraj, are non selected candidates in the recruitment process in the State Transport Corporation and the Anti Corruption Movement petitioners are not bribe givers for getting jobs further they are not complainants in the abovesaid three complaints (FIR Nos.441 of 2015,....