NAVINCHANDRA N MAJITHIA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The police inaction to carry on with the investigation in a particular criminal was attributed to financial crunch of the State and the High Court directed the complainant to supply funds to the police to meet the cost. The party against whom the case was filed felt that such privately funded investigation tantamounts to hired investigation which would mar the sanctity of the purpose of statutory investigation and hence he approached this Court for special leave to appeal. Leave granted.

(2.) Facts which led to the issuance of the aforesaid direction, briefly, are the following:A Mumbai based company claimed ownership of certain land situated at the commercially strategic location in the city of Mumbai. Another company the headquarters of which is at Shillong in Meghalaya, entered into some transaction with the Mumbai Company in respect of the said land. Further details of the disputes are not very necessary for this appeal except stating from the stage of commencement of the criminal proceedings. An FIR was lodged by the Shillong company with the Shillong police alleging that the Mumbai Company has cheated Shillong Company to the tune of Rupees nine crores. Sometime after lodgment of the said FIR the Shillong Company observed that the police was not moving ahead with the investigation as fast or as distant as the company expected. Hence the Shillong company filed a writ petition before the High Court of Guwahati for appropriate directions. A single Judge of the High Court passed a direction the extract of which reads thus:

(3.) As the above direction was obviously unpalatable to the Director General of Police, Meghalya, he and the Home Secretary of the State filed an appeal along with the State before a Division Bench of the High Court challenging the said direction issued by the single Judge. According to the State the investigation has to be conducted in Mumbai by the Maharashtra police and hence the direction issued by the single Judge is unworkable. But the said contention was repelled by the Division Bench. Regarding the direction issued by the single Judge to get funds from the aggrieved complainant, the Division Bench did not dilate much. Nevertheless learned Judges did not interfere with the said direction and observed that "in any case the learned single Judge has passed a just and proper order in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."