Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Chennai witnessed two daring daylight bank robberies in a short span of time. First one on 23.1.2012 at about 1.30 pm at Bank of Baroda, Perungudi Branch and the second one on 20.2.2012 at around 2 pm at Indian Overseas Bank, Keelkattalai Branch. while in the first incident, at gun point, an armed group of four persons decamped with cash of Rs.19 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr.No.72/2012 on the file of Thuraipakkam Police Station under Section 392 IPC r/w.Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, based on the complaint of the Branch Manager, in the second incident, a five member armed gang decamped with a cash of about Rs.14 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr.No.348/2012 on the file of Madipakkam Police Station under Section 395 IPC r/w.Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act on the complaint lodged by the Senior Manager of the said Bank. 2. While so, according to police, special teams were formed to identify and arrest the culprits involved in the case and in the course of investigation, they have also collected certain video footages, which were identified by the bank employees. While so, on 22.2.2012, on the information furnished by the house owner, the police came to know that the accused identified in the video footage and four other North Indians were staying in a house at Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony, Velacherry and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madipakkam Range proceeded to the place around 11.15 pm on that day and mounted surveillance in the area. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, reached the place. The narration of events by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in his counter affidavit, as fifth respondent in W.P.No.4564 of 2012 are extracted hereunder for better understanding: "On being communicated of the information, I reached the place and after studying the area, planned to proceed with the verification of the identified suspect. I organized a team of 14 officers and police men. Before going to the spot, we planned out various strategies to apprehend and arrest them. I posted the team of officers at the western window of the house and I lead one team to the front door. I organized a team of 14 officers and police men. Before going to the spot, we planned out various strategies to apprehend and arrest them. I posted the team of officers at the western window of the house and I lead one team to the front door. The time then was around 1.00 a.m. I knocked the door of the house and asked the inmates to open the door. In spite of identifying ourselves as police and asking them to open the door, in Hindi and Tamil, the inmates refused to open the door. They did not even switch on the lights, which was a suspicious conduct. At about that time I heard muttering in Hindi and I also heard the sound of loading and cocking of weapons from inside. I heard sounds of firing on the Western side and also heard them warning us in Hindi. I shouted at them and warned them to stop firing. Undeterred by my warning they continued to fire through the western window, which caused bullet injury to Mr.Christian Jaysil, Inspector of Police (10th Respondent herein). Hence the team on the western side opened fire at them. The area being thickly inhabited one with houses all around, the sound of firing awoke some neighbors. The bullets fired from inside the house were also hitting the walls and balconies of the opposite houses, which posed immediate danger to the life of the innocent neighbors. The inmates opened fire on the southern side which injured Mr.Ravi, Inspector of Police [9th respondent]. Thus it became obvious that the inmates were in no mood to surrender but were determined to inflict maximum damage by indiscriminately firing from inside and cause loss of human lives. As danger to the lives of general public and police personnel are real and imminent due to unabated firing from inside the house, I was left with no other option but to break open the front door and return fire. In the course of this action two of the police officers (9th and 10th respondents herein) and the five inmates sustained injuries. The injured were immediately rushed to Government Royapettah Hospital, for treatment, where the five inmates were examined and declared dead. The two injured Police Officers [9th and 10th Respondents], who sustained bullet injuries were admitted in the Hospital for treatment. The injured were immediately rushed to Government Royapettah Hospital, for treatment, where the five inmates were examined and declared dead. The two injured Police Officers [9th and 10th Respondents], who sustained bullet injuries were admitted in the Hospital for treatment. Five pistols used by the inmates to fire and one revolver and one shot gun along with ammunitions and cash of Rs.14,01,020/-were seized from the house. In addition to this, bags, voter ID cards, Driving Licenses, ATM cards etc., were recovered. On a complaint preferred by me in this regard, a case in Velacherry PS Cr.No.679 of 2012 under Sections 147,148,332 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w.27 and 28 of Arms Act, 3(1) of TN PPDL Act was registered at 02.20 hours on 23.2.2012." 3. This version of the police has been vehemently denied on the part of the petitioners in both the writ petitions by filing these writ petitions, as public interest litigations. According to the petitioners, the entire version of the police is a cock and bull story and it is a clear case of murder committed by the police officials and instead of resorting to the legal methods of apprehending the accused to face trial before appropriate Court of law, the police authorities in these cases resorted to short-cut and barbaric method of elimination of the suspected persons in a fake encounter, thus taking law into their own hands and hence the police officials who involved in the offence of murder of the suspected persons should be booked for committing the offence of murder. 4. First of all the above writ petitions, i.e. W.P.No.4564 of 2012 came to be filed by the petitioner on 24.2.2012, i.e. the very next day the news got published in the news papers 23.2.2012, based on the press meet conducted by the Commissioner of Police and the news reports published. It has, therefore, been commented on the part of the respondents that the said writ petition is a premature one, when the enquiry by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code is pending and without even verifying the ground realities. After this stance taken by the respondents, the petitioner has again filed another writ petition in W.P.No.6023 of 2012, once again as Public Interest Litigation, to declare the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code as illegal. After this stance taken by the respondents, the petitioner has again filed another writ petition in W.P.No.6023 of 2012, once again as Public Interest Litigation, to declare the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code as illegal. In the meantime, since the State Human Rights Commission has taken up the matter and ordered investigation into the matter by Mr.T.Rajendran, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.5181 of 2012 to forbear the said officer from conducting any probe, on the ground that the said officer has already filed a counter in a similar matter before this Court justifying the encounter of two accused persons and therefore, it is very much against the interest of the case to hand over investigation of such a sensitive matter to him. 5. while things stood thus, one Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy, has come forward to file W.P.No.5416 of 2012 stating that soon after the incident in question, he sent a representation to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Collector of Chennai District on 25.2.2012, seeking them to request this Court to appoint a sitting Judge or Supreme Court Judge to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report to the High Court as early as possible, but the same evoked no response and hence he sought a writ of Mandamus from us, directing the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the State to consider his representation and pass orders. All these matters are taken up together and elaborate arguments have been advanced on either side. 6. While on the part of the petitioners, they call it an 'encounter', rather a fake one, on the part of the respondents, it has strenuously been argued that the accused persons died in a 'police action', wherein even two police personnel on duty, got injured. 7. Undoubtedly, as could be seen from the very contents of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, it is clear that just based on what has appeared in electronic and print media, they built a castle in the air and that is the reason why they are unable to substantiate any of their contentions before us with concrete materials. 8. Undoubtedly, as could be seen from the very contents of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, it is clear that just based on what has appeared in electronic and print media, they built a castle in the air and that is the reason why they are unable to substantiate any of their contentions before us with concrete materials. 8. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that the Honourable Apex Court in B.Singh (Dr.) vs. Union of India [ (2004) 3 SCC 363 ], has held that 'news items published in newspapers are only hearsay evidence and no judicial notice can be taken on the same.' 9. In the very same judgment, the Honourable Apex Court, while considering the question of filing PILs in criminal matters, has held that 'this tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents.' 10. Admittedly, the petitioners are in no way connected with the deceased persons and more importantly they have no other material, except the media reports, to say that the Police people have concocted a story, after killing the accused persons. The bodies of the deceased have been claimed by their kith and kin without any protest. The FIR with regard to the incident had been registered based on the complaint lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and a Magisterial enquiry, as per the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission, has also been initiated besides transferring the investigation to CBCID by the Government. In these circumstances and in view of the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, we are not able to appreciate the propriety of the petitioners in filing any of these writ petitions. However, since certain legal aspects have been raised on the part of the petitioners, to give a quietus to the entire issue, we proceed to deal with them. 11. Having conducted an enquiry as required under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has filed her report, which has been submitted before us in a sealed cover by the learned Advocate General. We paid our anxious consideration to the contents of it and fully satisfied with the procedure adopted and the report filed by the said Magistrate. Having conducted an enquiry as required under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has filed her report, which has been submitted before us in a sealed cover by the learned Advocate General. We paid our anxious consideration to the contents of it and fully satisfied with the procedure adopted and the report filed by the said Magistrate. However, we refrain ourselves from extracting any of its contents in this order, given the fact that it is for the concerned Court, to deal with. For this purpose and further considering the fact that the petitioners in these writ petitions are in no way connected to the accused persons and neither they are the complainants nor witnesses to the incident, the question of issuing copy of the enquiry report of the Magistrate to the petitioner in W.P.No.4564 of 2012 and other petitions (Mr.P.Pugalenthi) does not arise. Accordingly, M.P.No.4 of 2012 in W.P.No.4564 of 2012 filed by the said petitioner does not merit consideration and accordingly, the said Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 12. The Magistrate's report nowhere suggested anything to doubt the veracity of the version of the police with regard to the incident. Likewise, the concluding report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Research Centre, Crime Branch CID, Chennai-16 had also pin-pointedly held that the death of five armed gangsters occurred when they attempted to kill the police personnel, who were making all their efforts to arrest them and when the police returned fire, in order to protect the lives of the public at large and their own lives. In the absence of any material placed before us to doubt the veracity of the reports of the Magistrate and the State's special investigating agency/CBCID, we find no reason to appreciate any of the contra contentions raised on the part of the petitioners, just based on the hearsay evidence and without any personal knowledge. 13. The contention of the petitioners in these cases is that the police personnel involved in the incident have to be booked for the offence of murder. 14. 13. The contention of the petitioners in these cases is that the police personnel involved in the incident have to be booked for the offence of murder. 14. Mr.P.N.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would vehemently argue that police personnel are also human beings and they dare their lives to nab the culprits and in discharge of their duties and in retaliation to the fire opened by the assailants, if the police personnel open fire in self-defence, that cannot be brought into the fold of 'murder'. He further argue that since in the case on hand, already a police complaint with regard to the incident had been registered as FIR and investigation is in its full swing, the question of registering a second FIR for the same incident or occurrence does not arise and even at the worst, to initiate any action against such officials, sanction as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a must. In support of such arguments, the learned counsel would place reliance on the following judgments: 15. In T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala and others [2001 AIR SCW 2571], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'there can be no second F.I.R. in respect of same cognizable offence, same incident or occurrence.' 16. In Om Prakash and others vs. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi and Another [(2012) 4 MLJ (Crl) 433 (SC)], while dealing with question as to requirement of sanction in prosecution of police personnel under Section 197 of the Code, has held that 'whether sanction is necessary or not has to be decided from stage to stage. There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record which may establish at the outset that police officer or public servant was acting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protection given under Section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for Court to hold that in such a case, the Court cannot look into any documents produced by accused or concerned public servant at inception. Nature of complaint may have to be kept in mind. Unless unimpeachable evidence is on record to establish that Police action is indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, Police Personnel cannot be subjected to prosecution. Requirement of sanction must be a precondition to their prosecution because it affords necessary protection to such police personnel.' 17. Nature of complaint may have to be kept in mind. Unless unimpeachable evidence is on record to establish that Police action is indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, Police Personnel cannot be subjected to prosecution. Requirement of sanction must be a precondition to their prosecution because it affords necessary protection to such police personnel.' 17. We are in respectful agreement with the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court. In the cases on hand, since we have already held supra that no material is available before us to appreciate any of the contentions raised on the part of the petitioners and in view of the reports of Magistrate and the CBCID, the factum of going into these aspects urged on the part of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and the learned Advocate General would not arise. 18. On behalf of the learned counsel appearing for CBI cases, it has been strenuously argued that the CBI is already over-burdened and investigations of this type, as a routine or casual manner, need not be referred to CBI and to substantiate his argument he relied on certain judgments of the Honourable Apex Court. 19. We are quite aware that Courts should always be cautious in referring matters to CBI and casual orders of referring investigation to CBI is quite unwarranted. But, however, we are quite convinced, as discussed above that there is no legal or procedural flaw committed on the part of the State Government, in immediately referring the investigation to CBCID, as mandated by the National Human Rights Commission and in the light of the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate, which nullifies the contentions of the petitioners. Therefore, we find it not necessary to go into this aspect of referring the investigation to CBI and the burden now it is carrying. 20. Coming to the question of incident, as already stated supra, pursuant to two broad day robberies at Banks and based on video footages in their possession and based on a tip-off from the house-owner of the house, wherein the deceased accused were residing, the police party went to the spot and as could be seen from report of the Magistrate filed under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there was exchange of fire between the police party and the accused. Media reports and hearsay evidence, cannot take the place of substantial evidence to prove the allegations of the petitioners, particularly in the light of the meticulous enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 21. With regard to W.P.No.5181 of 2012, the petitioner therein has questioned the veracity of the State Human Rights Commission in choosing Mr.T.Rajendran, IPS (the fifth respondent therein) as the officer to conduct a probe into the present incident. It is the allegation of the petitioner that two persons viz. Pandi @ Dindigul Pandi and Velu @ Guduvancherry Velu were done to death by Police in an alleged encounter occurred on 8.2.2010 at Neelankarai, Chennai and when this petitioner filed W.P.No.4082 of 2010 before this Court for a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu to register a case against the police personnel involved in the said encounter, the present 5th respondent, who was the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, filed a counter statement therein justifying the killing of those two persons and specifically stating that the police had killed those two persons in exercise of their right of self-defence. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the choice of the State Human Rights Commission in choosing this respondent is bad. 22. The fifth respondent is a senior IPS officer, worked in various capacities and when a case has been filed before this Court, as the head of the police personnel, he had filed his counter affidavit, which cannot be found fault with. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent himself has indulged in an act, which was proved to be a fake encounter by legal fora. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the action of the 5th respondent in filing such a counter affidavit, as the head of the Chennai Police, was faulted with by the Court. Therefore, we are not able to appreciate this stand taken on the part of the petitioner. The State Human Rights Commission, by applying its judicious mind, has chosen the 5th respondent to enquire into the matter. In the absence of any material against the 5th respondent so as to call him unfit to perform the said duties and merely based on the unproven statements of the petitioner, no such direction, as has been prayed for by him in this writ petition, could be issued. In the absence of any material against the 5th respondent so as to call him unfit to perform the said duties and merely based on the unproven statements of the petitioner, no such direction, as has been prayed for by him in this writ petition, could be issued. Accordingly, this writ petition in W.P.No.5181 of 2012 is also dismissed. 23. With regard to W.P.No.6023 of 2012, it is the contention of the petitioner therein that since Section 176(1-A) of Cr.P.C. is clear to the effect that only when a person dies in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorized by the Magistrate, an enquiry shall be held by the Magistrate and since in the case on hand, it is not a custodial death, the very enquiry initiated and conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176 (1-A) of the Cr.P.C. is illegal. 24. It has thus become incumbent on us to see what Section 176 (1-A) of the Criminal Procedure code, contemplates. The original Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was amended by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.6.2006, thereby inserting sub-sections (1-A) and (5) to Section 176 and omitting certain words in sub-section (1) of Section 176. After amendment, the said Section now reads as follows: "176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death - (1) when the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 174, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer, and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence. (1-A) Where - (a) any person dies or disappears, or (b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman, while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court, under this Code, in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed." Prior to this amendment, the National Human Rights Commission has issued revised guidelines/procedures to be followed in cases of deaths caused in police action. They read as under: "A. When the police officer in-charge of a police station receives information about the death in an encounter with the police, he shall enter that information in the appropriate register. B. Where the police officers belonging to the same Police Station are members of the encounter party, whose action resulted in death, it is desirable that such cases are made over for investigation to some other independent investigation agency, such as State CB CID. C. Whenever a specific complaint is made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which makes out a cognisable case of culpable homicide, an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the I.P.C. Such case shall be investigated by State CBCID or any other specialized investigation agency. D. A magisterial enquiry must be held in all cases of death which occurs in the course of police action, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months. The relatives of the deceased, eye witness, witnesses hang information of the circumstances leading to encounter, police station records etc. must be examined while conducting such enquiry. E. Prompt prosecution and disciplinary action must be investigated against all delinquent officers found guilty in the magisterial enquiry/police investigation. F. No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the concerned officer is established beyond doubt. G.(a) All cases of deaths in police action in the states shall be reported to the Commission by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the District within 48 hours of such death in the following format. G.(a) All cases of deaths in police action in the states shall be reported to the Commission by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the District within 48 hours of such death in the following format. 1. Date and place of occurrence 2. Police Station, district 3. Circumstances leading to death: (i) Self defence in encounter (ii) In course of dispersal of unlawful assembly (iii) In the course of effecting arrest (iv) Any other circumstances 4. Brief facts of the incident 5. Criminal case No. 6. Investigating Agency (b) A second report must be sent in all cases of death in police action in the state by the Senior Superintendent of Police / Superintendent of Police to the commission within three months providing following information. 1. Post-mortem report 2. Inquest report 3. Findings of the magisterial enquiry/enquiry by senior officers disclosing:- i. Names and designation of police official, if found responsible for the death; ii. Whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful; iii. Result of the forensic examination of 'hand wash' of the deceased to ascertain the presence of residue of gun powder to justify exercise of right of self defence; and iv. Report of the Ballistic Expert on examination of the weapons alleged to have been used by the deceased and his companions." 25. As could be seen from the above extracted Section 176 (1-A), it is unambiguously clear that an enquiry by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall be conducted where any person dies or disappears or rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman, not only while such person or woman is in the custody of the police, but also during inquiry or investigation held by the police. In the present case, having a tip-off with regard to the presence of the accused persons concerned with two bank robbery cases in a building at Velacherry, the Police who are conducting the investigation in the robbery cases have gone to nab the accused at which point of time, the gun battle took place, resulting in the death of the accused persons and injuries to the police personnel also. While that being the legal and factual position, the contention of the petitioner that no magisterial enquiry is mandated under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be accepted since the deaths have occurred during the course of investigation. Accordingly, this writ petition also deserves only to be dismissed. 26. While this writ petition is pending, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 have been filed in W.P.No.4564 of 2012 by some third parties, including some advocates and the people living in the Velacherry area, praying to implead them as party respondents to the writ proceedings. In their affidavits, they have stated that the police action in these cases is very much towards implementing the law and order and there is every justification in the contentions raised on the part of the police personnel. Since we have already held that the present writ petitions merit no consideration being bereft of truth, we do not see any reason to bring these persons as party respondents to W.P.No.4564 of 2012. Accordingly, these Miscellaneous Petitions No.1 to 3/2012 are dismissed. 27. For all the above reasons, the contentions raised and urged on the part of the petitioner in W.P.No.5416 of 2012 merit no consideration. 28. All our above discussions would lead to the following conclusions: 1. The petitioners have come forward to file these writ petitions under the name and style of probono public without any personal knowledge and just based on hearsay evidence and media reports, which cannot take the place of substantive proof. ii. As the death of the accused persons occasioned during the course of investigation, the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176 (1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code is perfectly valid in law. iii. The respondents have strictly complied with the mandate of law, by resorting to enquiry by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the State Government has swiftly acted in transferring investigation of the matter to the CBCID, in due compliance of the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission. iii) The reports of the Magistrate and CBCID, nowhere suggest anything against the version of the Police that it is only a police action. iii) The reports of the Magistrate and CBCID, nowhere suggest anything against the version of the Police that it is only a police action. iv) The petitioners, completely third parties to the entire incident and the very complaints, wherein investigation is in full swing, cannot be permitted to poke their nose into the investigation of the case, under the garb of these public interest litigations, that too without any material and knowledge about the same, except the hearsay evidence and media reports. For all the above reasons, all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.