IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.961-62 OF 2015

               (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.3967-3968 of 2008)

MURAD ABDUL MULANI                               .......APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

SALMA BABU SHAIKH & ORS.                         .......RESPONDENTS

                                    WITH

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.963-64 OF 2015

               (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.4051-4052 of 2008)

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.965-66 OF 2015

               (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.4130-4131 of 2008)

                                  O R D E R

            Heard learned counsel for the parties.

            Leave granted.

            Through the instant  criminal  appeals,  a  challenge  has  been

raised to the directions issued through the order passed by the Bombay  High

Court in  Criminal  Writ  Petition  No.400  of  2007  dated  28.02.2008  and

03.03.2008.  The operative part of the  order,  which  is  relevant  to  the

surviving prayers, is extracted hereunder:

      “42.   In  the  above  circumstances,  though  the  learned  P.P.  had

strenuously tried to argue that the matter should be left to  the  concerned

authorities to  conduct  the  necessary  preliminary  inquiry  and  to  take

appropriate decision, with utmost respect, we are unable to agree  with  the

said suggestion. We find that the Police Officers who  were  entrusted  with

the investigation in the case in hand, who  were  expected  to  conduct  the

investigation honestly, sincerely and to the best  of  their  ability,  have

not only failed to perform their duties accordingly  but  unfortunately  and

shockingly their conduct reveal to be those of the persons acting  with  the

sole purpose of shielding the real culprit and allowing him to go  scot-free

and there was not even an attempt to  collect  the  evidence  which  was  to

their knowledge available and could have been  collected  much  earlier.  An

investigation officer who is required to conduct investigation  in  relation

to a cognizable offence when intentionally avoids to  collect  the  required

evidence,  or  even  fails  to  take  appropriate  steps  which  in   normal

circumstances any investigation officer is expected  to  take,  without  any

justification and explanation in  that  regard,  then  the  only  conclusion

which can be drawn is that the inaction in that regard  was  deliberate  and

intentional and with the  sole  intention  to  help  the  wrongdoers  unless

otherwise is established. Certainly, such an inaction on  the  part  of  the

police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned.  It will send  not

only wrong message but it will result in great prejudice to the  public  and

will hamper the process of law and lead to lawlessness.  The members of  the

public who approach the Police authorities with  the  hope  and  expectation

that the wrongdoers should be booked for  the  commission  of  offences  and

should be punished, would stand to loose trust in the police department,  if

such officers for their serious  inactions  are  allowed  to  go  scot-free.

Mere disciplinary action in that regard  would  not  be  sufficient  answer.

Shielding or trying to shield any wrongdoer is itself a serious offence  and

assumes more seriousness when it is committed by a person  none  other  than

from the police department.  Therefore, we do expect the Government to  take

a serious note of this and to take appropriate  action  against  the  erring

Police officers and personnel, failing which the petitioner  is  at  liberty

to approach the Court afresh.

43.   We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to take immediate action  in

the matter and in any case within  twelve  weeks,  in  accordance  with  the

provisions  of  law  for  disciplinary  action  as  well  as  for   criminal

proceedings against the concerned officers. The respondent Nos.9  to  11  to

pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.  The costs shall  be  paid  from

the personal account of those respondents and shall not be a burden  on  the

Government treasury.  The costs to be paid within  twelve  weeks.   Needless

to say that all the observations made herein above are in  relation  to  the

conduct of the investigation officers and shall not in any way weigh in  the

mind of the Courts below while dealing with the matter arising  out  of  the

FIR lodged in relation to the death  of  Yasmin.  The  action  taken  report

should be placed before the Court within two weeks after  twelve  weeks  for

necessary further orders, if any, in the matter.  The rule is made  absolute

accordingly in above terms.”

            When the challenge was raised with reference to the above  order

passed by the Bombay High Court, this  Court,  on  the  very  first  day  of

hearing, passed an interim order of  stay.  The  aforesaid  order  has  been

continued till date,  and  as  such,  the  above  directions  have  remained

unimplemented.

            It is relevant to record that the  petitioner  before  the  High

Court, who is  a  resident  of  Mumbai,  had  two  daughters.   One  of  the

daughters – Yasmin died on 17.01.2006 in suspicious  circumstances.   Yasmin

who was then studying  in  the  10th  standard  is  stated  to  have  poured

kerosene on herself and taken her life on 17.01.2006 in her own house.   The

mother of Yasmin had alleged that Umesh Yallapa Arote, who had a  one  sided

love affair with  her  daughter,  was  responsible  for  the  death  of  her

daughter. It was also her case, that the investigation being carried out  by

the Police Department, was not fair.  It is in the  above  background,  that

the High Court had passed the  impugned  order,  incorporating  therein  two

express directions in paragraph 43.  A perusal of paragraph 43 reveals  that

the High Court had  directed  the  State  Government  to  take  disciplinary

action against the officials entrusted with the investigation of  the  case.

Secondly, a direction was issued to initiate  criminal  prosecution  against

the investigating officers.

            It is not a matter of dispute that with reference to  the  death

of Yasmin on 17.01.2006, Sessions Case No.745 of 2010  was  registered.   On

the conclusion of the  trial  thereof,  the  Ad  hoc  Asstt.Sessions  Judge,

Greater Bombay by an order dated 17.06.2011,  acquitted  the  accused  Umesh

Yallapa Arote.  In the  order  of  acquittal,   the  Ad  hoc  Asstt.Sessions

Judge, Greater Bombay, took into consideration, the  issue  of  abetment  to

suicide, at the hands of the accused Umesh Yallapa  Arote,  and  recorded  a

finding thereupon, that there was no evidence on the record, that  prior  to

the  incident  dated  17.01.2006,  the  accused  Umesh  Yallapa  Arote,  had

instigated or abetted the deceased Yasmin, to commit suicide. In  the  above

determination,  the  dying  declaration  of  Yasmin  was  also  taken   into

consideration.

            The  aforesaid  determination  at  the  hands  of  the   Ad  hoc

Asstt.Sessions Judge, Greater  Bombay  is  the  subject  matter  of  serious

contest at the hands of the learned counsel for  the  respondents  i.e.  the

petitioner before the High Court.  It is his contention, that the  aforesaid

conclusions were based on the manipulation of the investigative  process  by

the appellant before this Court.

            Having given our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  directions

issued by the High Court, and keeping in mind the fact that  the  occurrence

took place almost a decade ago on 17.01.2006, we are of the view,  that  the

impugned direction contained in paragraph 43 of  the  order  passed  by  the

High Court deserves to be modified.  With the  concurrence  of  the  learned

counsel for the rival parties,  we  consider  it  just  and  appropriate  to

direct, that the matter in question  with  reference  to  the  inappropriate

investigation at the hands of the  appellant  in  regard  to  the  death  of

Yasmin (who committed suicide  on  17.01.2006),  be  examined  by  the  Home

Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra.  It  shall  be  open  to  the  rival

parties including the complainant i.e. the  respondents  herein,  to  appear

before the Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra, either in person  or

through their counsel, and place before him such material as  is  considered

necessary.  The Home Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra,  shall  examine

the material placed before him, and after hearing the  rival  parties,  pass

an order whether departmental action needs to be taken,  and  also  whether,

criminal prosecution needs to be initiated against the appellant. A copy  of

the above order, will be furnished to the rival parties, without any  delay.

 It will be open to the aggrieved party, to assail the  same  in  accordance

with law.

            The parties are directed to appear before  the  Home  Secretary,

of  the  State  of  Maharashtra  on  01.09.2015  at  11.00  A.M.   The  Home

Secretary, of the State of Maharashtra,  shall  pass  an  appropriate  order

within three months, from the  date  of  first  appearance  of  the  parties

before him.

            The instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.

                                                ..........................J.

                                                                    (JAGDISH

SINGH KHEHAR)

..........................J.

                                 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 21, 2015.