Debangsu Basak JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. Applicant is a co-accused in a criminal case. Applicant seeks to be added as a party respondent in a writ petition which alleges perfunctory investigation by the Police in relation to a police case where the applicant is one of the accused.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that, the applicant along with others are co-sharers in respect of several plots lying and situate at Mouza Junsura J.L. No. 122, District Bankura. The applicant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Such suit was decreed ex parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed which is pending. Thereafter one of the co-sharers to the property filed an application under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant approached the writ court by W.P. No. 25047 (W) of 2015 complaining of Police inaction. Such writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated January 11, 2016 by directing the Police authorities to render assistance to protect the right, title and interest of the applicant as declared by the Civil Court. A review petition was filed. The review petition was dismissed. A second writ petition was filed by the applicant along with other co-sharers being W.P. No. 16680 (W) of 2018. During the pendency of such writ petition, an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed on December 12, 2018 alleging that, on November 20, 2018, the applicant along with ten others committed theft of the crop lying and situate at the plots described in the schedule to such application. On the basis of such proceedings, Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 188/2018 was started. On December 20, 2018 when the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed, nothing was alleged with regard to the death of the deceased. Subsequently on December 21, 2018 the writ petitioner submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that on October 29, 2018 the applicant and other persons with co-sharers of the property murdered the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused persons applied for anticipatory bail which was allowed on February 8, 2019. The writ petitioner deliberately did not make the applicant as a party respondent in the present writ petition although the applicant came to learn that there are allegations against the applicant in the writ petition. The applicant is a necessary and proper party in the writ petition. The writ petition seeks investigation to the death of the deceased through the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.). The applicant therefore should be added as a party respondent and allowed to contest the same.
3. The application for addition of party is opposed on behalf of the writ petitioner. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the applicant is an accused in a criminal case. The applicant cannot have any say in the investigation or the Investigating Authority investigating the criminal complaint. Therefore, the applicant cannot be added as party respondent in the writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, relies upon MANU/SC/0371/2011 : 2011 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases page 79 (Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.) and MANU/SC/0591/2018 : 2018 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases page 365 (E. Sivakumar v. Union of India & Ors.). He submits that, the application should be dismissed.
4. The application is for the purpose of adding the applicant as a respondent in a writ petition which is pending. The writ petitioner in the writ petition seeks investigation with regard to the death of the deceased through the C.I.D........