PIL 79/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH The petitioner who claims himself to be a conscious inhabitant o f the locality where the incident involved had taken place and dedicated to figh t against social offences being impelled by such a public spirit is before this Court to ensure that the investigation of the police case is conducted by the ag ency authorised in law. We have heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned Counsel for the petiti oner and Ms. B. Goel, learned State Counsel, Assam. Also heard Mr. Sharma, learn ed Government Advocate Assam. On the basis of a telephonic information received by the Officer -in-charge, Vairengte Police Station, in the State of Mizoram, from C/31, Lalrau ngbanla Vairengte Police Check Gate, that a dead body of a female was lying near Lailapur N.H. 54, Aizwal to Silchar Road, the said Police Officer visited the p lace of occurrence and after preliminary investigation registered Vairengte P.S. Case No. 12/2010 under section 302 Indian Penal Code. According to the petition er, receiving the above information the Assam Police had also reached the place of occurrence but the Mizoram Police with the help of some Mizo Youths wrested t he body from it and usurped the power of investigation of the criminal case. The petitioner has stated that as the place of occurrence is under Dholai Police St ation in the district of Cachar, the Mizoram Police under the Code of Criminal P rocedure (hereafter referred to as the Code), has no jurisdiction to investigate and that therefore judicial intervention in the instant proceeding is called fo r to ensure legality in the investigation into the offence which is a crime agai nst the society. The State of Assam in its affidavit through the Superintendent o f Police, Cachar, Silchar, while admitting about the incident of homicidal death on 19/2/2010 at the Assam-Mizoram disputed border area intervening Lailapur PP under Dholai Police Station in the District of Cachar, on one part and Vairangte e P.S. within the State of Mizoram on the other has disclosed that the victim wa s a Mizo woman found near the National Highway with external injuries on her per son. The answering respondent also affirmed the presence of the Officer in Charg e, Vairengtee P.S. and the SDPO, Kolasib (Mizoram) at the place of occurrence. A s the Assam Police found that the Mizoram Police was ready to investigate the in cident and that a police case had already been registered by it, it did not reco rd a separate case on the same incident. The respondent has asserted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no lapse on the part of the Dholai Police in the matter of investigation. Mr. Barbhuiya has urged with reference to section 156 and 157 of the Cod e that as the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the Dholai P.S. , registration of the case by Vairengtee P.S. and the investigation by it is inv alid in law and that there is every possibility that thereby the exercise undert aken by it would eventually end in a nullity. Whereas Ms. Goel has reiterated the stand of the State of Assam in the a ffidavit as indicated hereinabove, Mr. Sharma on instructions has submitted that the investigation in the case is being duly conducted by the Vairengtee P.S. an d that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is untenable in law. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleading on record, we are left unconvinced on the merit of the contenti ons raised in the instant petition, which is presented to be in the form of a pu blic interest litigation. It is apparent from the affidavit of the State of Assa m that the incident, which in the assessment of the Dholai P.S., is of homicidal death, had occurred at the Assam Mizoram disputed border area. In that view of the matter, at this stage of the investigation, it is no t possible to hold that the investigation of the Vairengtee P.S. is wholly witho ut jurisdiction. As alluded hereinabove, the Vairengtee P.S. has already registe red a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as apprised by Mr. Sha rma the investigation in the case is proceeding, there is nothing on record to s uggest that the investigation underway suffers from any laches, inaction or appa rent infirmity justifying the interference of this Court therewith at the presen t. Moreover the petitioner’s keenness in the issue is rather intriguing. His cre dentials are inadequate for establishing his locus standi for maintaining the pr esent petition. In the above view of the matter, this petition is not entertained. Howev er, it is made clear that if it appears to the investigating agency of the Vaira ngtee P.S. that the offence had infact been committed in any area within the loc al limits of the State of Assam, it would take necessary steps so as to ensure t hat the investigation does not suffer from any legal infirmity or vitiation so a s to render the same invalid in the eye of law. The petition stands closed with the above observation. No costs.