Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. Vs State Of Gujarat 

Advertisements

Facts of the case

The appellant’s husband died in a calamitous event which happened on 28th February 2002. So, she filed an FIR in the police station. The police conducted an investigation on the complaint and filed a charge sheet. After this, the appellant received certain evidence against responsible persons in power which includes the police machinery of the state. So, she sought to register another FIR against these persons and to direct the investigation to an independent agency. But, the police did not take cognizance of the complaint. So, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The high court dismissed the petition by observing that the appellant had other remedies available before her under section 190 and 200 of CRPC. 

          On 3^rd March 2008, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the order by the High Court. By that time, the supreme court had constituted a special investigation team . The court also passed an order directing the team to look into the complaint of the appellant. And they submitted a report after conducting further investigation . The court also appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the court. He submitted a preliminary note before the court. The court directed the SIT to make further investigation and submit the report in the light of the note. Thus, the SIT conducted further investigation and submitted a report. The court passed an order directing the amicus curiae to submit a report after making his own assessments from the said report. The amicus curiae also submitted his final report on 25^th July 2011.

Arguments raised by the appellant

• The counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no provision in the CRPC which debars the appellant from filing a new FIR, even if it is based on the same facts and allegations. In this case, the appellant files another FIR based on the freshly found evidence against certain people. Moreover the second FIR covers a wider range of offense than the first FIR. It is the mandatory duty of the police to register the FIR under section 154 of CRPC and the police failed to do so. 
• The counsel also submitted that according to section 173(8) of CRPC, the police can conduct further investigation, even after submitting a final report or after the court taking cognizance of the offense  based on the freshly found evidence against the accused persons. Since there are allegations against the state machinery of police regarding the conspiracy, the appellant prayed to direct further investigation to an independent agency

Arguments raised by the respondent 

• The counsel for the respondent submitted that the second complaint filed by the appellant for the same offense is not maintainable under CRPC. When the police conducts the investigation on the complaint and submits a charge sheet against the accused the complainant cannot file a second complaint for the same offense. The only remedy is to pray for further investigation under section 173(8) .
• The counsel also submitted that the complaint is required to be dismissed on the ground that it is a belated complaint. The police files an FIR to obtain early information regarding the offense. In this case the appellant files the petition after 4 ½ years of the happening of that incident.

Judgement 

The investigating agency had completed its investigation as per the directions of the court and filed the charge sheet based on it. So, the court directed the SIT to forward its final report to the court which had taken cognizance of the offense. The court also observed that the case reached a stage where the process of monitoring of the case must come to an end. Thus, the court disposed of the appeal since the case does not need further investigation.

Reason 

The court directed the SIT to forward the final report without further investigation because the SIT had already conducted its investigation as per the directions of the court . The court also appointed an amicus curiae who assisted the court in dealing with the case. So, the court decided to direct the SIT to forward its report to the court which had taken cognizance of the offense.

                The court also observed that it can only interfere in the case when proper and fair investigation has not been conducted. Once the court is satisfied that proper investigation has been conducted the court should not interfere in the judicial functions of the court. When a charge sheet is filed before the court after proper investigation, the concerned court only has the power to deal with further proceedings. Thus the court decided to halt further monitoring of the case and disposed the appeal

    Later developments

The SIT submitted its report closing the investigation against the accused and granting them a clean chit without hearing the appellant. So, she filed a protest petition  before the magistrate. But, it was rejected by the court. Thus, the appellant filed a petition in the high court. And, she filed an appeal in the supreme court following the dismissal of the petition. 

       The supreme court rendered the judgement in favour of the respondent and held that the SIT  conducted the investigation in a fair manner. The Amicus Curiae appointed by the court also accepted the final report. The main issue in this case is regarding the allegations of larger conspiracy at the highest level. But the claims on which the allegations were made proved to be wrong from the investigation. 

References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1453301/
• https://sociallawstoday.com/zakia-jafri-v-state-of-gujarat-case-analysis/
• https://vakilsearch.com/judgments/jakia-nasim-ahesan-hussain-jafri-vs-state-gujarat-2-scra-421-2007/63beac9c25ccf3015318576c

written by Poornima Rajasekaran a student of Government Law College, Thrissur, third semester.

Admin