Judgment 1. Keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in this writ application, it was heard in detail and is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner in this writ application is Secretary General of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a body constituted under section 3 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Originally, this writ application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash order dated 19.2.1996 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur by which he accepted the final report submitted by the police in Naubatpur PS Case No. 96 of 1995 and for issuance of a writ/direction/order commanding the respondents to hold an independent investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice. The salient facts which led to the filing of this writ application are as follows : 3. A criminal case bearing Naubatpur PS Case No. 103 of 1994 was instituted by the local police against 200-250 unknown persons under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code with allegation that the two deceased, namely, Manoj Kumar and Purshottam Kumar along with one Rajnish Kumar had been assaulted by an unruly mob when they were allegedly caught with firearms. This allegedly led to death of Manoj Kumar on way to the hospital whereas Purshottam Kumar died in the hospital and Rajnish Kumar, the third injured was admitted and was being treated in the hospital. Finding the circumstances leading to death of the two youths Manoj Kumar and Purshottam Kumar, suspicious, the Director General of Police, Bihar directed the matter to be investigated by the DIG, Central Range who found that the two deceased died while in police custody due to beating by the police. The petitioner has alleged that the said report was exhaustive and on this basis some departmental action was also taken against the concerned police officials but thereafter the report was shelved and no FIR was lodged against police personnels causing miscarriage of justice. 4. The petitioner has alleged that the said report was exhaustive and on this basis some departmental action was also taken against the concerned police officials but thereafter the report was shelved and no FIR was lodged against police personnels causing miscarriage of justice. 4. The matter of custodial death of two youths was enquired into by a team of citizens belonging to Bihar Branch of PUCL in July, 1994 and as per their report based upon statement of several eye witnesses including the injured-Rajnish, the incident took place due to refusal to give some motor parts on credit to police personnels and the two youths were allegedly beaten in the police station in presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms Sangita and they died due to brutal beating by the police. 5. The father of deceased Purshottam Kumar, Sri Garhnandan Singh, made a complaint dated 27.8.1994 to the NHRC with regard to custodial death of his son and one Manoj Kumar. As per this complaint, Manoj Kumar died in the police station itself whereas Purshottam Kumar died in Danapur Sadar Hospital on account of multiple injuries caused by the local police officials. The said complaint has been annexed as Annexure-3. On perusal of the complaint, NHRC on 30.8.1994 directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to submit a report regarding the said incident. The Government of Bihar informed the Commission (NHRC) that the concerned police officials have been placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was being drawn up against them. After about a year, a FIR was instituted leading to Naubatpur PS Case No. 96 of 1995 dated 21.5.1995 under sections 302, 307, 323/34 of the IPC against four concerned officials. The informant of this case was one Ram Nath Prasad, a Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Naubatpur police station. In this case a final report was submitted by the police on 29.12.1995 describing the case as a mistake of fact. 6. According to the petitioner, the final report was submitted by the police after a perfunctory investigation with an effort to screen the offenders and the court of learned ACJM was not made aware of independent enquiries conducted by the DIG, Central Range or the citizens and members of PUCL, Patna Branch and in absence of all the relevant materials, the learned ACJM, Danapur accepted the final report by the impugned order dated 19.2.1996 (Annexure-5). 7. 7. After noticing the salient features of this case relating to custodial death of two youths, this Court by order dated 17.11.1999 directed the District and Sessions Judge, Patna to either himself or through any senior Additional District and Sessions Judge, hold enquiry with respect to the correctness and otherwise or the allegation made in this writ application and submit a report to this Court within four months. The parties were given liberty to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective case. Upon receipt from the District and Sessions Judge, Patna a detailed report of enquiry conducted by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna, this Court by order dated 3.5.2000 permitted the petitioner to add Sri Deepak Kumar, the then Inspector, Naubatpur PS, Sangita Kumari, the then Dy. S.P, Naubatpur PS, S.K. Tiwary, the then SI, Naubatpur PS, Shambhu Sharan Srivastava, Jamadar, Naubatpur PS, Arun Paswan, the then Jamadar Naubatpur PS, Uma Shankar Tiwary, the then Driver at Naubatpur PS, as respondents 3 to 8 in this writ application. The newly added respondents were served with notices of this writ application. Except respondent no. 4 all the other respondents appeared and were heard through their counsels. 8. A perusal of the enquiry report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna reveals that upon notice Garhnandan Singh, father of deceased Purshottam Kumar, appeared and examined 11 witnesses in the enquiry while no witness was examined on behalf of the State of Bihar. Learned PP, Patna filed certain documents and after noticing the deposition of 11 witnesses and other materials, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge came to a finding that there was prima facie evidence that the two youths-Purshottam Kumar and Manoj died due to assault on them while in police custody in Naubatpur police station. 9. The initial point raised in this writ application was whether Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees fair investigation of a criminal case lodged by the citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution of India contains a clear mandate that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The protection of personal liberty guaranteed by this fundamental right is one of the prime duties of the State. Article 21 of the Constitution of India contains a clear mandate that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The protection of personal liberty guaranteed by this fundamental right is one of the prime duties of the State. This important right has already been given a realistic meaning under several judicial announcements of the Apex Court holding that right to life shall include right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 by relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that it assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation and, therefore, both, the Central Government and the State Government are bound to ensure observance of various social welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy. This Court feels no hesitation or difficulty in holding that in appropriate cases like the present one containing allegations of blatant violation of right to life at the hands of public servants like police employees, the right of the concerned persons to get their complaints fairly and impartially investigated is assured by Article 21 itself otherwise the protection to personal liberty guaranteed by this Article will lose its meaning and substance. To hold otherwise would render Article 21 hollow in its contents and there will be no assured means to ensure the observance of fundamental right to personal liberty. 10. The aforesaid discussion was found necessary to support the order of this Court dated 17.11.1999 by which, in the facts of the case, an enquiry was ordered by the District and Sessions Judge, Patna or by any senior Additional District and Sessions Judge to be nominated by him. It is, however, relevant to mention here that none of the parties have raised any grievance against the aforesaid order . or against the report of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna submitted through the District and Sessions Judge, Patna in pursuance of the said order dated 17.11.1999. 11. It is, however, relevant to mention here that none of the parties have raised any grievance against the aforesaid order . or against the report of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna submitted through the District and Sessions Judge, Patna in pursuance of the said order dated 17.11.1999. 11. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the Secretary of the NHRC has approached this Court in this matter on behalf of the Commission under section 18 (2) of the Act so that this Court, in the facts of the case, may issue such directions, orders or writs as the Court may deem necessary. The preamble of the Act unambiguously discloses that the Act is to provide for constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in State and Human Rights Courts for better protection of Human Rights or for matters which are incidential thereto or connected therewith. Section 17 of the Act vests Commission with power to enquire into complaints of violation of human rights. Section 18 mentions different steps through various sub-sections which the Commission may take upon completion of an enquiry held under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 enables the Commission to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary. In the facts of the case, there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner has appropriately moved this Court for necessary directions, orders or writs. 12. At the stage of arguments it was noticed at the instance of the respondents that by the impugned order dated 19.2.1996 contained in Annexure-5 the learned ACJM, Danapur noticed the final form submitted by the police in Naubatpur PS Case No. 96/95 and found that the case diary does not contain any evidence against the accused persons. The same order mentions the pendency of a complaint case bearing no. 219 (C)/94 and on behalf of the complainant of that case it was submitted before the learned Magistrate that he wants to adduce his evidence in the complaint case and, therefore, no objection was raised to passing of an order accepting the final form submitted by the police. The same order mentions the pendency of a complaint case bearing no. 219 (C)/94 and on behalf of the complainant of that case it was submitted before the learned Magistrate that he wants to adduce his evidence in the complaint case and, therefore, no objection was raised to passing of an order accepting the final form submitted by the police. In view of the fact that the investigating officer had not brought any evidence against the accused persons in the case diary, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Magistrate rightly accepted the final form and decided to proceed with the complaint case which was pending from before. The complainat also, in the aforesaid circumstances, rightly opted for proceeding with the complaint case. Such a course of action is in accordance with provisions of section 210 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. A copy of the aforesaid complaint in case no. 219 (c)/94 along with certified copy of the order-sheet in that case from 14.6.1994, the date of filing of the said complaint, till 16.6.2000 was produced before this Court on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the complaint petition shows that the said complaint has been filed by one Nirdhin Singh, father of one of the deceasedManoj Kumar, against five police officials for allegedly assaulting and causing death of Manoj Kumar and Purshottam Kumar in the premises of Naubatpur PS on 13.6.1994. The order-sheet discloses that the complaint was filed in the court of learned ACJM, Danapur on 14.6.1994. On 30.6.1994, the complainant was examined on oath and thereafter, the Magistrate recorded that the matter requires enquiry and the complainant was directed to produce his other witnesses. Some witnesses were examined in course of enquiry but on 29.5.1995, the court noted in the order-sheet that a FIR vide Naubatpur PS Case No. 96/95 had been lodged with regard to same occurrence and further proceedings of the complaints case shall remain stayed till conclusion of investigation in the aforesaid police case. On that account the complaint case remained pending till 19.2.1996. The complainant did not appear and take any action in the complaint case for one and half years and on 19.9.1997 a prayer was made to call for postmortem report from PMCH, Patna. On 25.11.1997, the learned Magistrate ordered for depositing special messenger cost which was deposited on the next date. The complainant did not appear and take any action in the complaint case for one and half years and on 19.9.1997 a prayer was made to call for postmortem report from PMCH, Patna. On 25.11.1997, the learned Magistrate ordered for depositing special messenger cost which was deposited on the next date. The Patna Medical College Hospital informed the learned Magistrate in December 1997 that the postmortem was got done by Pirbahore police station and the report had been sent to that police station. By order dated 11.11.1998 the learned Magistrate asked for the postmortem report from the concerned police station i.e. Pirbahore police station. During the aforesaid 11 months no pairvi was done on behalf of the complainant. On 23.11.1998, the learned Magistrate directed the office for compliance with the earlier order which related to postmortem report and thereafter, the complaint was not listed on the date fixed i.e. 1.6.12.1998 but on 6.6.2000 a fresh date was fixed for 5.7.2000 and the office was again directed to comply with the earlier order. 14. A scrutiny of aforesaid facts emerging from the complaint petition and the order-sheet reveals that the complainant, Nirdhin Singh, father of one of the deceased, Manoj Kumar, has not been able to pursue the complaint case properly and effectively after February 1996. There is nothing on the record to disclose the reasons for such inaction and it will not be safe to hazard a guess whether this situation has resulted on account of lack of resources on the part of the complainant or for any other reason. The other two conclusions are that the learned Magistrate has not shown proper sensitivity and expedition which was required of him in handling a case of this nature and the third conclusion is that inspite of orders of the court the postmortem reports of the deceased have not yet been sent to the learned Magistrate. 15. Placed with such a situation, as noticed above, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to send the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna to the court of learned ACJM, Danapur with a direction to use the said report for proceeding further with the complaint case pending before him expeditiously and in accordance with law. The other prayer made was that in the facts of the case Garhnandan Singh, the father of the other deceased, may be permitted to file a separate complaint petition which may be tagged with the pending complaint petition so that the complaint case, in a case of this nature, may not fail only for inability or laxity of complainant, Nirdhin Singh. In view of the aforesaid subsequent stand and prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to add Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the initial provision of law. 16. On behalf of the State of Bihar and its officials i.e. respondents no. 1 and 2 learned Government Advocate raised an objection of a technical nature that report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna should not be sent to the court of ACJM, Danapur nor a separate complaint by Garhnandan Singh should be directed to be entertained by that court because there was already a complaint case pending in the court below with regard to the alleged occurrence and offence in which learned ACJM would be deemed to have taken cognizance by virtue of his order dated 30.6.1994 when he examined the complainant on oath and decided to hold further enquiry. According to learned Government Advocate, such further enquiry after examination of complainant on oath would be an enquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the proposition that by his aforesaid actions the Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offence in question learned Government Advocate relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D. Lakshminarayanan vs. V. Narayana ( AIR 1976 SC 1672 ) and upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhai vs. Budhan ( 1978 BBCJ 136 ). Learned Government Advocate further submitted that in a criminal case cognizance cannot and should not be taken twice and, therefore, second complaint with regard to same offence by Garhnandan Singh, father of another deceased, should not be permitted by this Court and Garhnandan Singh and his witnesses can very well appear as witnesses in the pending complaint case which is still at the stage of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. 17. So far as first submission of learned Government Advocate is concerned, there is no difficulty in holding that the learned Magistrate by his order dated 30.6,1994 has taken cognizance of the offence in question on the basis of complaint filed by Nirdhin Singh in complaint case no. 219 (c)/ 94 but his further submission that since cognizance has been taken hence, the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna should not be sent to the court of learned Magistrate does not appear to be well founded in law for the reason that at the stage of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminial Procedure the Magistrate can either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. No doubt, the enquiry by Additional District and Sessions Judge was under directions of this Court and not under the direction of the learned Magistrate, in the facts of this case it cannot be said that this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot direct such an enquiry by a District and Sessions Judge or by an Additional District and Sessions Judge. Hence, this Court is of the view that the report of Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna is a legal and valid report for the use of the learned Magistrate in the pending enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. So far as question of allowing Garhnandan Singh to file another complaint in the pending proceeding is concerned, this Court does not find such a course of action necessary for the simple reason that a complaint with regard to same offence is already pending before learned ACJM, Danapur at the stage of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This observation should not, however, be taken to mean that this Court has laid down a law that simply because a complaint case for an occurrence is pending at the stage of enquiry then no second complaint can be entertained at the instance of another interested person. This observation should not, however, be taken to mean that this Court has laid down a law that simply because a complaint case for an occurrence is pending at the stage of enquiry then no second complaint can be entertained at the instance of another interested person. It is well settled in law that criminal proceeding can be set in motion by any person in cases involving serious offences which affect the society at large. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting in this regard that laws and procedure are only the handmaids of justice and in the interest of justice a competent court of law should pass all necessary orders that will promote the interest of justice and bring the offenders to book unless such orders are specifically or by necessary implication barred by any law. 19. Taking the aforesaid facts and discussions into consideration, this Court is of considered opinion that this writ application should be finally disposed of by issuing the following directions to the learned ACJM, Danapur in order to safeguard the interest of justice in the pending complaint case no. 219 (c)/94 : (1) The office of this Court shall forthwith transmit a true photostat copy of the report of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna to the court of learned ACJM, Danapur, who shall treat the said report as a report of investigation by such person who will be deemed to have been authorised by learned ACJM himself for the purpose of section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The learned ACJM shall take prompt steps to bring on record the postmortem reports of the two deceased and for this purpose, respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall render all assistance and issue all necessary orders and directions so as to ensure that the postmortem reports are made available to the learned ACJM, Danapur within four weeks from the date of this order. (3) The learned ACJM, Danapur shall proceed to complete the pending enquiry in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order before him. (3) The learned ACJM, Danapur shall proceed to complete the pending enquiry in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order before him. (4) If the court below finds that the complainant, Nirdhin Singh is for any reason not able to pursue the complaint case promptly and properly then Garhnandan Singh, the father of the other deceased, should be treated as the complainant and should be allowed to take all necessary steps in that capacity. 20. Before parting with this order, it is relevant to mention that learned counsel for other respondents had prayed for an observation to the effect that this order and the report of Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Fatna should not be permitted to cause any prejudice to the private respondents who are arrayed as accused in the complaint case. In response to the aforesaid prayer it is deemed necessary to observe that this order as well as the report of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna are meant only to protect the interest of justice and to ensure that the pending criminal proceeding is conducted in accordance with law. If as a result of the pending enquiry the court below decides to issue process against the accused persons then the court concerned shall keep in mind that this order and the report of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Patna should not cause any prejudice to the accused persons. 21. A perusal of the order-sheet of learned ACJM, Danapur did not create a happy impression regarding the manner in which this proceeding has been conducted so far. It is hoped that the court concerned shall show greater sensitivity and expedition. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of but in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.