Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sadashiv Ambadas Gaike, a social worker, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for a fair investigation into Crime No. 571 of 2017 registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case pertained to alleged misappropriation of funds of the Aurangabad District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner claimed that the investigation was not conducted properly and sought transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and police officials, opposed the petition. The court noted that the investigation had already been completed and a charge-sheet had been filed. The petitioner was not a victim or an aggrieved person in the case. The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to seek a direction for fair investigation or transfer of investigation. The court further observed that the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lies with the Magistrate, and the petitioner could approach the Magistrate if he had any grievance. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, along with the connected criminal application for intervention.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Locus Standi - Fair Investigation - Third Party - The petitioner, a social worker, sought direction for fair investigation and transfer of investigation to CBI/ACB in a bank fraud case. The court held that the petitioner, not being an aggrieved person or victim, lacked locus standi to seek such relief, especially when investigation was complete and charge-sheet filed. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation - Transfer of Investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - The court observed that the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC lies with the Magistrate, and the petitioner could approach the Magistrate if aggrieved. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a third party not directly affected by the alleged offence, has locus standi to seek a direction for fair investigation and transfer of investigation to CBI or ACB in a case already investigated and charge-sheeted.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 993 of 2019 as not maintainable. Consequently, Criminal Application No. 3018 of 2019 for intervention also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Fair investigation
- Transfer of investigation
- Section 154 CrPC
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 173(8) CrPC
- Writ jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
