Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 242 (PNJ)

Mamta Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2001-02-19

V.M.JAIN

body2001
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed by Ms. Mamta Sharma, praying therein that the inquiry in respect of allegations of outraging the modesty and attempt to commit rape, levelled by the petitioner against Mr. B.P. Tiwari, Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab, be marked to C.B.I. 2. In short, it has been alleged in the petition that petitioner is 19 years old girl studying in B.A. Part I and that the family of the petitioner migrated from Khanna in Punjab to Kurukshetra in Haryana in the year 1991, when the terrorism was at its peak in the State of Punjab. It was alleged that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and that now the petitioner and her three young sisters were living with their mother in Kurukshetra. It was alleged that the mother of the petitioner was an office-bearer of an organisation called All India Rajiv Gandhi Brigade. It was alleged that one Jagjit Singh Sandhu was President of the said All India Rajiv Gandhi Brigade for Punjab and he was helping the family of the petitioner. It was alleged that said Jagjit Singh Sandhu was under protection of the Punjab Police for the last 14 years. It was alleged that in November, 2000 said Jagjit Singh Sandhu came into contact with Shri B.P. Tiwari, Additional Director General of Police (Security) Punjab, when he had gone to meet him for deputing security guards for him from Punjab Armed Police. It was alleged that in one of those meetings, Shri Tiwari suggested to Shri Sandhu to make available a girl, who could work at his residence and help his wife, having knee fracture and needed a constant help. It was alleged that thereupon Shri Sandhu suggested to the mother of the petitioner regarding offer of Shri Tiwari and the mother of the petitioner accepted the said offer. It was alleged that thereupon on 10.12.2000, the petitioner alongwith her mother, her uncle, Shri Sandhu and his wife came to the house of Shri Tiwari, where Shri Tiwari and his wife undertook to treat the petitioner as their daughter and thereupon the petitioner was left at his house. It was alleged that Shri Tiwari had promised to pay Rs. 2000/- per month for the services of the petitioner. It was alleged that Shri Tiwari had promised to pay Rs. 2000/- per month for the services of the petitioner. It was alleged that on 11.12.2000, no work was assigned to the petitioner and on the next day i.e. 12.12.2000, Shri Tiwari told the petitioner in the presence of his wife that she should hold the plate while he would take breakfast from that plate. It was alleged that he also started asking the petitioner as to whether she had any boyfriend, to which she replied in negative. It was alleged that thereupon Shri Tiwari left for his office and came back at 2.00 p.m. and thereupon Shri Tiwari went to the market alongwith his wife and took the petitioner with him. It was alleged that in the market Shri Tiwari took the petitioner to a book shop and Shri Tiwari and his wife had shown a book to the petitioner which was of "Kamsutra" and Shri Tiwari suggested to the petitioner to buy that book but the petitioner refused saying that she was not interested in such books. It was alleged that at night time, the petitioner was called to the drawing room where Shri Tiwari and his wife were sitting and at that time Shri Tiwari asked the petitioner as to whether she had ever watched any "Blue Films" in her life, whereupon the petitioner showed her ignorance about the blue films whereupon Shri Tiwari explained that the blue films contained erotic and sexy scenes, whereupon petitioner objected to the behaviour of Shri Tiwari and left the drawing room and went to the room which was assigned to her. It was alleged that on 13.12.2000, Shri Tiwari did not go to his office and stayed at his home and during forenoon, he tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner by touching her neck, her ear and her face. It was alleged that in the afternoon, Shri Tiwari and his wife had to go to Nabha to meet their daughter and the petitioner was made to sit in between Shri Tiwari and his wife on the back seat of the car and throughout on the way, in the presence of his wife, Shri Tiwari kept on touching the body of the petitioner i.e. her neck and her thighs. It was alleged that inspite of her objections to the same, he continued such actions and used to play loud music on the cassette which had the wording "I am still young". It was alleged that they returned home late night at 11.00 p.m. and thereupon Smt. Tiwari suggested to the petitioner to sleep in between them i.e. Shri Tiwari and his wife, as she was to leave for Uttar Pradesh very soon and she wanted to make sure that the petitioner takes proper care of her husband. It was alleged that the petitioner objected to the same and stated that she was not of that type, whereupon Smt. Tiwari commented that if the petitioner would not come near Shri Tiwari, Shri Tiwari would not be able to help the petitioner or her family. It was alleged that the petitioner did not accede to their demand and slept separately. It was alleged that on 14.12.2000, the petitioner was again forced to hold the plate for Shri Tiwari and at that time Shri Tiwari did not misbehave with the petitioner but kept on commenting in obscene language. It was alleged that in the afternoon when Smt. Tiwari was leaving for PGI for her treatment she gave two capsules to the petitioner saying that these were vitamin capsules. It was alleged that when the petitioner took those capsules she started feeling heaviness in her head and also felt short of breath. It was alleged that in the meanwhile Smt. Tiwari left for PGI while petitioner started studying in her room. It was alleged that at about 3.30 p.m. Shri Jagjit Singh Sandhu and his wife entered the house of Shri Tiwari and they were made to sit on the first floor, where tea was served to them by the servants of Shri Tiwari. It was alleged that after sitting with them for about 15-16 minutes, Shri Tiwari came downstairs and entered the room of the petitioner and at that time he was under the influence of liquor and he caught hold of the petitioner and tried to throw her on the bed and at that time petitioner understood that Shri Tiwari had bad intentions in his mind. It was alleged that immediately Shri Sandhu and his wife came downstairs and they saw Shri Tiwari holding petitioner in his grip and when Shri Sandhu objected to the same Shri Tiwari asked him to leave his house, whereupon sensing trouble Shri Sandhu asked petitioner to pack up her baggage and thereafter she was brought to Kurukshetra and was handed over to her mother at about 8 p.m. It was alleged that at that time mother of the petitioner made a phone call to Shri Tiwari and talked to him and his wife and at that time Shri Tiwari threatened the mother of the petitioner that he would get her (mother of the petitioner) and Shri Sandhu fixed in some case under the NDPS Act, as he was friendly with Haryana Director General of Police as well as SSP Jalandhar, where Shri Sandhu was permanently residing. At that time Shri Tiwari also stated that even S.P. Kurukshetra was under his influence. It was further alleged that during her stay in the house of Shri Tiwari from 10.12.2000 to 14.12.2000, petitioner was also subjected to medical examination by a Doctor as Shri Tiwari had remarked that he suspected that the petitioner was having AIDS or T.B. It was alleged that the modesty of the petitioner had been outraged by Shri Tiwari and his wife with their common intention and they had created circumstances in which they made all efforts to coerce the petitioner for subjecting her to act sexually with Shri Tiwari. It was alleged that the petitioner had come to know that several other young girls have been enticed into the traps of Mrs. and Mr. Tiwari and they were forced to have sexual relations with Mr. Tiwari under threat or coercion. It was alleged that the petitioner came to know that those victims were forced to remain silent due to the official position of Shri Tiwari. 3. It was further alleged in the petition that the petitioner had no faith in the Punjab Police, as the offence had been committed in H.No. 2428, Phase XI, Mohali, which comes within the jurisdiction of Mohali Police and since Shri Tiwari was holding the rank of Additional Director General of Police and can be assigned the job of Director General of Police, Punjab, it was seriously apprehended that Punjab Police can not give justice to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner is filing present petition in this court, with a prayer for an inquiry from C.B.I. into the whole episode. It was alleged that a detailed investigation would reveal that not only the petitioner but several other girls and ladies had been trapped by Shri Tiwari by misusing his official position. It was alleged that after reaching her house at Kurukshetra on 14.12.2000, the petitioner had discussed the whole issue with her mother and other relatives and that on 16.12.2000, Shri Sandhu contacted a lawyer and thereafter they visited the house of the lawyer on 17.12.2000 and she wrote down the details of the whole incident from 10.12.2000 to 14.12.2000. A photocopy of the said writing dated 17.12.2000 was attached with the petition as Annexure P-1. It was prayed that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the inquiry into allegations of outraging the modesty and attempts to rape, made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari, be got made from C.B.I. It was further prayed that directions be given to S.P. Kurukshetra to ensure protection of life and property of the petitioner and her family members. Ms. Mamta Sharma, petitioner, filed her own affidavit in support of the said petition. 4. In the above said petition dated 19.12.2000 filed by Ms. Mamta Sharma, C.B.I. was impleaded as a respondent. Vide order dated 20.12.2000, on the oral request made by the counsel for petitioner, the State of Punjab was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition and the office was directed to make necessary correction in the heading of the petition. Thereafter, notice of motion was ordered to be issued to A.G. Punjab. On 22.12.2000, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab had placed on recorded a short affidavit of Shri Sidharth Chattopadhayaya, D.I.G. (Crime), on behalf of State of Punjab. In the said short affidavit it was alleged that Director General of Police, Punjab had made order on 19.12.2000 that inquiry be conducted by Shri S.V. Singh, IPS, Additional Director General of Police (Crime) into the allegations levelled by Ms. Mamta, petitioner, in the press against Shri B.P. Tiwari, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Punjab and to submit a report within 15 days. Mamta, petitioner, in the press against Shri B.P. Tiwari, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Punjab and to submit a report within 15 days. It was further alleged that in compliance of the said order, Shri S.V. Singh, Additional Director General of Police (Crime) had initiated inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari. It was alleged that summons were issued no 19.12.2000 to Ms. Mamta, her mother and Shri Sandhu to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 22.12.2000, but the petitioner and her mother reported that on 22.12.2000, their case was fixed before the High Court and as such they could not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 22.12.2000. It was further alleged that now the Inquiry Officer had again summoned Mamta Sharma, her mother and Shri Sandhu to appear before him on 26.12.2000. On 22.12.2000, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced certain documents which were taken on record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had prepared and signed a complaint, the photocopy of which was Annexure P-1 and that the petitioner wanted FIR to be registered on the basis of the said complaint. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the original complaint was with him and he produced the same and the same was taken on record. Since no time was left to conclude the arguments, the case was adjourned for remaining arguments. In the meanwhile, the S.P. Kurukshetra was directed to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of the petitioner. In the meanwhile an application was filed by Shri B.P. Tiwari, Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab, Chandigarh, bearing Crl.M. No. 373/2001, seeking permission to be impleaded as a party to the petition and for making his submissions to oppose the petition filed by the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the applicant (Shri Tiwari), and after perusing the record, the said application filed by Shri Tiwari for being impleaded as respondent, in the petition filed by Mamta Sharma, petitioner, was dismissed. However, it was directed that the counsel for Shri Tiwari would be at liberty to assist the court, with regard to the legal propositions involved in the main case. 5. However, it was directed that the counsel for Shri Tiwari would be at liberty to assist the court, with regard to the legal propositions involved in the main case. 5. At the start of the remaining arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, placed on record a photocopy of the interim report of inquiry submitted by Shri S.V. Singh, Additional Director General of Police (Crime) Punjab. In the said interim report, it was reported that even on 26.12.2000, Mamta Sharma, petitioner and her mother did not appear before him on the ground that since they had filed petition in the High Court and had asked for CBI inquiry, they would not be appearing before him (Shri S.V. Singh). It was further alleged that the presence of Shri Sandhu and his wife could not be procured inspite of best efforts and the matter could not be looked into, in view of the non-cooperative attitude of the complainant and other witnesses. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that taking into consideration the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner and further taking into consideration that the allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against a senior functionary of the State Government, who is posted as Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab, it is a fit case where the allegations made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari should be inquired into by an independent agency like C.B.I. It was submitted that this would be in the interest of justice on both sides. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for State as also the learned counsel appearing for Shri Tiwari submitted before me that no case was made out for directing the C.B.I. to hold an inquiry, especially when Shri S.V. Singh, IPS, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, who has been directed by the Director General of Police, Punjab to hold inquiry, is senior to Shri Tiwari and the petitioner can possibly have no grudge if the inquiry was conducted by Shri S.V. Singh, IPS. 8. 8. In the present case, the prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition is that the allegations made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari should be inquired into by C.B.I., by marking inquiry to C.B.I. There is no prayer in the petition that the police may be directed to register an FIR, with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari or that the investigation into the said FIR should be entrusted to C.B.I. 9. In Mrs. Madhu v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 854, Mrs. Madhu had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction of this court for the registration of a criminal case under Section 354 read with Section 509 Indian Penal Code against Shri S.P.S. Rathore, who was posted as Additional Director General of Police, Haryana. The allegations against Shri Rathore were that when he was posted on deputation and was the President of Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, Panchkula, he went to the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra, bearing No. 363, Sector 6, Panchkula on 11.8.1990 and asked Shri Girhotra not to send his daughter Ruchika to Canada, as she was a promising tennis player and that he would provide her extra coaching. Shri Rathore also asked him to send his daughter to him on 12.8.1990 at about 12.00 noon in his house, which was also the office of the said Association and that on 12.8.1990, Ruchika alongwith her friend Reemu, went to see Shri Rathore. He sent Reemu to fetch the coach of tennis and finding Ruchika alone he started misbehaving with her and tried to molest her. Further allegations were that in the meanwhile, while Shri Rathore was trying to outrage the modesty of Ruchika, Reemu returned without coach, whereupon Shri Rathore again tried to send Reemu back to bring the coach and finding a chance Ruchika ran out of the room, and Reemu also came out of the room. It was alleged that when Reemu was coming out of the room Shri Rathore asked her to tell Ruchika to calm down and he would do whatever she would say. It was alleged that again on 14.8.1990, Shri Rathore summoned Ruchika in his office in evening but she did not go, fearing that Shri Rathore might misbehave with her again. It was alleged that when Reemu was coming out of the room Shri Rathore asked her to tell Ruchika to calm down and he would do whatever she would say. It was alleged that again on 14.8.1990, Shri Rathore summoned Ruchika in his office in evening but she did not go, fearing that Shri Rathore might misbehave with her again. It was alleged that ultimately Ruchika informed her father about the misbehaviour by Shri Rathore on 12.8.1990. With these allegations, inquiry into the allegations against Shri Rathore was entrusted to Director General of Police, Haryana, who vide report dated 3.9.1990, after recording statements of various witnesses, including Ruchika and Reemu reported that his observation was that in the Indian society no girl or any parent would lodge a false complaint of physical molestation of this nature for obvious reasons. It was further reported that the allegations made by Ms. Ruchika were based on true facts and he was of the opinion that a cognizable offence was made out and, therefore, recommended that a case under appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code be got registered on the statement of Ms. Ruchika and investigated. The said report made by the Director General of Police was not acted upon by the State. On the other hand, the State thought it proper to proceed departmentally against Shri Rathore. Not satisfied with the action taken by the State Government, writ petition was filed in the High Court, in the year 1997. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the State was directed to register a criminal case under Section 354 read with Section 509 Indian Penal Code against Shri S.P.S. Rathore, IPS, forthwith. In the reported case th counsel for Shri Rathore had expressed an apprehension that his client may not get justice at the hands of the State police. After noticing that the first right to investigate the crime is that of the State, but on the facts of the said case, it was held that it was a fit case where the investigation should be entrusted to a different agency. Accordingly, it was directed that after registration of the case, the investigation of the case shall be handed over to CBI authorities. Accordingly, it was directed that after registration of the case, the investigation of the case shall be handed over to CBI authorities. It was further directed that the investigation of the case shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Inspector General of CBI and that the investigation shall be verified by the Inspector General, CBI, before submitting the final report. It is not disputed before me that the order passed by this court, in Mrs. Madhus case (supra), was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the FIR which was registered against Shri Rathore was in fact investigated by the C.B.I., in pursuance of the directions given by this court and upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. 10. In Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 434, the allegations levelled by the petitioner, in the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed in this court were that he (petitioner) belonged to Village Begowal, which was the village of Bibi Jagir Kaur (who was the President of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee). It was alleged that the petitioner and Harpreet Kaur (deceased), who was elder daughter of Bibi Jagir Kaur, developed friendship which ultimately culminated into the love affair. It was alleged that they used to meet off and on and were formally got engaged, which function was kept secret because Bibi Jagir Kaur did not approve this relationship. It was alleged that at the instance of Harpreet Kaur, deceased, they also decided to marry secretly and thereafter to seek the blessings of her family. It was alleged that Smt. Harpreet Kaur also got pregnant. It was alleged that Bibi Jagir Kaur did not approve the relationship between the petitioner and deceased. It was alleged that later on the deceased told him on telephone that she had run away from the house, whereupon he contacted Harpreet Kaur in her village from where they went to Rai near Sonepat and spent night together. It was alleged that when he contacted his parents, he came to know that the local police was harassing them at the instance of Bibi Jagir Kaur. It was alleged that when Harpreet Kaur contacted her mother Bibi Jagir Kaur, on telephone, she was agreeable to their marriage. It was alleged that when he contacted his parents, he came to know that the local police was harassing them at the instance of Bibi Jagir Kaur. It was alleged that when Harpreet Kaur contacted her mother Bibi Jagir Kaur, on telephone, she was agreeable to their marriage. It was alleged that thereupon they returned, but Bibi Jagir Kaur scolded her daughter Harpreet Kaur in the presence of the petitioner and at that time Bibi Jagir Kaur threatened to finish Harpreet Kaur. It was alleged that Harpreet Kaur had also told the petitioner that during earlier confinement, she was administered some intoxicant and she became unconscious and thereafter she found herself to be in the hospital, where she observed that her bed was completely wet and that she had given birth to a child and had also heard a cry and had also momentarily seen the child. It was alleged in the petition that during their meeting, Harpreet Kaur had shown strong desire to Bibi Kaur to perform formal marriage with petitioner and she agreed and the petitioner left the company of Harpreet Kaur. It was alleged that subsequently, the petitioner came to know from the newspaper about the sudden death of Harpreet Kaur. It was alleged that cremation of Harpreet Kaur and other last rites were performed in a hush hush manner. It was alleged that the local police did not perform their duty and did not even prepare the inquest report on the dead body nor post mortem examination was conducted. The petitioner suspected that Harpreet Kaur, deceased, was murdered. With these allegations, Kamaljit Singh, petitioner filed the petition for issuance of direction for investigation of the entire episode relating to the sudden and suspicious death of Harpreet Kaur by an independent agency like CBI, so that the persons responsible in committing the offence were booked. After hearing both sides and after perusing records, this court allowed the said petition. While allowing the said petition, the following observations were made by this court :- "It goes without saying that power to investigate crime and the power that which agency should investigate lies with the State Police Agency and the same cannot be interfered normally by the judiciary. While allowing the said petition, the following observations were made by this court :- "It goes without saying that power to investigate crime and the power that which agency should investigate lies with the State Police Agency and the same cannot be interfered normally by the judiciary. However, in cases like the one where the investigation in a particular case pertaining to the cognizable offence is doubted or does not instil confidence because of obvious reasons of the possibility of involvement of some persons placed on a high pedestal than a common citizen, the ramification involved in such a case can be effectively gone into by an agency which has better equipment and wider network than the local police or the crime branch of the State police. The investigation in such cases should be referred to such an agency like Central Bureau of Investigation. The people in general have faith in its integrity and to instil confidence in public mind, the Court can ask the investigation to be conducted by such agency." 11. Accordingly, it was directed that investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Harpreet Kaur shall be conducted by CBI. The Superintendent of Police, CBI was directed to proceed with the investigation and in case the same was found to be the result of commission of an offence, the guilty should be brought to book. It was further directed that the inquiry shall be completed within 4 months. It was further directed that all material collected so far by the inquiry team headed by the I.G. Police (Crime), Punjab shall be handed over to S.P., CBI. It was further directed that necessary police protection shall be provided to Kamaljit Singh, petitioner. 12. It is not disputed before me that in pursuance of the said directions given by this court, the case was inquired into by the CBI and later on FIR was registered by the CBI and the case was investigated by the CBI. 13. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 38, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed concerning the incident which had taken place at Pilibhit, on the night intervening 12/13.7.1991, in which 10 persons were reported to have been killed which was described as "encounter" between the Punjab militants and the local police. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 38, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed concerning the incident which had taken place at Pilibhit, on the night intervening 12/13.7.1991, in which 10 persons were reported to have been killed which was described as "encounter" between the Punjab militants and the local police. The writ petition was filed on the basis of the news item which had appeared in "Times of India" in connection with said incident. The issue was raised in the Parliament and the teams of M.Ps. belonging to various political parties also visited the places of incident to make an on the spot inquiry. The investigation in regard to the incident was handed over to an officer of the Inspector Generals level and the local police officers, who were suspected to be concerned with the incident, were also transferred to enable the said officer to carry on the inquiry unhindered. Subsequently, the State Government also appointed a one member Commission headed by a Single Judge of Allahabad High Court to inquire into the matter but the same could not proceed because of some stay granted by the Allahabad High Court restraining the Commission from functioning. Taking into consideration that the local police was involved in the alleged encounter, a request was made that an independent agency may be asked to inquire/investigate into the matter in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to bring the offenders, if any, to book. Request was made that the investigation may be permitted to be carried out by CBI, having regard to the fact that accusations were levelled against the local police. On the other hand, the counsel for the State submitted that the State Government had already taken prompt action in the matter by appointed a senior officer to inquire into the incidents and promptly transferring the concerned local police officers so that there can be no possibility of any tampering or interference by them and that there was no need for directing the CBI to investigate into the matter. After considering the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Honble Supreme Court held as under :- "...we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we so hope that it would complete the investigation at an early date so that those involved in the occurrences one way or the other may be brought to book. We direct accordingly. In so ordering we mean no reflection on the credibility of either the local police or the State Government but we have been guided by the larger requirements of justice..." 13. In State of Maharashtra and others v. Sheela Ramesh Kini and others, JT 1998(9) SC 434, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, transferring the investigation from CID Crime to CBI. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for Shri Tiwari submitted before me that this court had no power to refer the matter to CBI for the purpose of investigation. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and another, (1998)4 Supreme Court Cases 409 and Mohammed Anis v. Union of India and others, 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 145. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Shri Tiwari. In Supreme Court Bar Associations case (supra), it was nowhere held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code could not issue directions to CBI to inquire into the matter where a case is made out for issuing such direction. In Supreme Court Bar Associations case (supra), it was nowhere held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code could not issue directions to CBI to inquire into the matter where a case is made out for issuing such direction. Similarly in Mohammed Aniss case (supra) no such restriction was imposed on the powers of the High Court by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In State of West Bengal and others v. Sampat Lal and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 195, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 6 of the Special Police Establishment Act, 1945 would not apply when the court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation and accordingly the order passed by the High Court appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter was upheld, holding that the said order would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Act. 15. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2001(1) SC 624, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code had no power to direct the CBI to conduct investigation. It was further held by the Honble Supreme Court as under :- "True, powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to the CBI to investigate in certain cases. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases reported as Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another, JT 1988(4) SC 293 and Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police and others, JT 1993(5) SC 375." 16. Taking into consideration the above discussion, in my opinion, this court certainly has the powers to issue directions to the CBI to hold investigation or to enquire into the matter, if the circumstances of the case so warrant. 17. In the present case, as referred to above, the petitioner has levelled serious allegations against Shri B.P. Tiwari, Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab. 17. In the present case, as referred to above, the petitioner has levelled serious allegations against Shri B.P. Tiwari, Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab. During the course of arguments, it was submitted before me by the learned State counsel that the Punjab Government is ready to hold a fact finding inquiry by appointing a senior IAS officer. However, in my opinion, asking a senior IAS officer to hold an inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner against Shri Tiwari, would not meet the ends of justice. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate for a person from the Punjab Police to inquire into the allegations against Shri Tiwari. As referred to above, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice for both sides, if the matter is inquired into by an independent agency like CBI so that the truth may come out and necessary action taken, depending upon the result of the said inquiry. Furthermore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, no case is made out for ordering registration of an FIR at this stage, especially when even the petitioner has not made any such prayer in the present petition. The only prayer made by the petitioner is that the allegations be inquired into by the CBI instead of local police. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the Director CBI is directed to nominate an officer not below the rank of DIG to inquire into the allegations made in the complaint dated 17.12.2000, a photocopy of which was initially attached by the petitioner with the petition as Annexure P-1 and the original complaint was later on produced by the counsel for the petitioner before the court. The said Inquiry Officer shall join both the sides in the said inquiry. Depending upon the result of the inquiry, further necessary action shall be taken by the CBI, including registration of an FIR, if the circumstances so warrant. It is further directed that the Inquiry Officer shall complete the inquiry within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Director, CBI either from this court or from the petitioner. It is further directed that the Inquiry Officer shall complete the inquiry within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Director, CBI either from this court or from the petitioner. It is further directed that the officer inquiring into the matter should be an IPS officer, not from the cadre of Punjab Police. The original complaint shall be sent to Director CBI, alongwith a copy of this order. Petition allowed.