Shillong, April 26: High Court of Meghalaya has dismissed a petition to quash the complaint of Army Major Vinay Singh after he was assaulted by his own men during the Cherry Blossom Festival on November 15 last.
The petition was filed by the Ministry of Defence for quashing the FIR against the GOC 101 Area, Lt General Malik and 10 others, for the assault incident.
The complainant Major Vinay was represented by advocate Nitin Khera assisted by advocate T. Marngar.
During the hearing on the matter on April 24, Justice B Bhattacharjee observed that in view of the fact that the accused persons named in the FIR are yet to be put on trial, there is no question of scuttling the investigation by the state police into the FIR registered against the accused.
The FIR filed on January 3 this year was lodged by the victim to report about the incident of assault, grievous hurt and an attempt to take his life on the evening of November 15, 2024 at the Cherry Blossom Festival, Umroi by the officers, Junior
Commissioned Officers and men of Headquarter 101 Area and Headquarter 21 Mountain Division, named in the FIR.
The complaint was initially received at the Laban police station as zero FIR and,
subsequently, transferred to the Umroi police station for investigation.
N. Mozika, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the present petition has been filed mainly on the ground that a Court
of Inquiry has been instituted by the HQ Eastern Command on January 14 to enquire into the incident as mentioned in the FIR
registered by the Umroi police station.
He submitted that although a plea was made to quash the FIR at this juncture, petitioners would prefer the investigation by the
state police to be kept in abeyance for a certain period of time to facilitate the
smooth conduct of the Court of Inquiry.
He pointed out that if the investigation launched by the state police and the Court of Inquiry proceed simultaneously, immense inconvenience would be caused considering the fact that the presence of common witnesses may be necessary before both the authorities for conducting the respective investigations.
He submitted that though the petitioners
do not have any legal right to stall the investigation by the state police at
this stage, the present petition has been filed taking into consideration the inconvenience which may arise during the course of the Court of Inquiry.
He sought to keep in abeyance the investigation by the state police for eight weeks.
NG Shylla, Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondents submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition before the court.
According to her, the petition was
filed with a mala fide intention to protect the persons named in the FIR without any legal basis. She submitted that the state police have the right to proceed with the investigation as there is disclosure of
commission of cognizable offence in the FIR.
Advocate Khera opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and
submitted that the petitioners have no right to obstruct the investigation launched by the police at this stage.
According to him, as per section 125 of
the Army Act, 1950, the petitioners can claim trial of a matter only after completion of investigation and institution of proceedings in respect of an offence.
He submitted that the petitioners being third party, have no locus standi to challenge the investigation as it is exclusively the prerogative of the accused persons to challenge the investigation initiated against them.
According to him, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
The court observed that submissions made by the counsels for the parties and
the perusal of the materials on record make it clear that the facts alleged in the FIR constitute offences under the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023 and as per the mandate of law, these offences are to be investigated by the
state police.
“There is nothing in law which requires handing over the investigation launched by the state police into the alleged offence under
Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023 if the accusation is made against army
personnel. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2006, Additional Director General Vs. Central Bureau Investigation held that: -‘Thus, the law on the issue is clear that under Section 125 of
the Army act, the stage of making option to try an accused by a court-martial and not by the criminal court is after filing of the chargesheet and before taking cognizance or framing of
the charges’Thus, it is clear that section 125 of Army Act relates to the trial of a case and not to the investigation. Therefore, in view of the fact that the accused persons named in the FIR are yet to be put on trial, no question of scuttling the investigation by the state police into the FIR registered against the accused arises. The criminal petition, as such, has no merit and stands dismissed.
Despite dismissal of the criminal petition, it is expected that the state police, while investigating the matter, would make every effort to not cause any inconvenience to the Court of Inquiry initiated by the petitioners
in the matter”, the court said.
