Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1234 (RAJ)

Sudhir Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-09

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Padam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner., 2. The petitioner has presented himself to be a member of the legal profession and working on jail reforms since the year 1984. It has been averred in the petition that a company named "Gold Sukh" was opened sometime in the past in 2006-07 by a group of persons with the ill motive of wrongful gain to them and wooed investors with the promise that the money they would keep with it, would multiply. According to the petitioner, to inspire confidence in the investors, it arranged functions which were attended by some police officials. Soon thereafter, in the succeeding years in 2008, 2009 and 2010, some of the investors feeling suspicious, approached the police, but as averred by the petitioner, those complaints were either not registered or the complainants were compelled to withdraw the same. It has been stated that in the month of November 2011, the offices of the company throughout the State were closed and it surfaced thereafter that the investors have been cheated to the tune of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- crores. Several newspapers clippings have been annexed giving widespread coverage to this episode. These reports also, according to the petitioner, established an unholy nexus of the police officials in the financial scam leading to loss of the deposits of thousands of unsuspecting investors. According to the petitioner, six police personnel's were identified to be so involved so much so, that by order dated 2.12.2011, they were made to await Posting Order. Instances of FIRs filed by many persons but not registered, have been cited. That few such information's though registered, were not investigated properly, has been mentioned as well. 3. The petitioner has stated that while the matter rested at that, on 12.3.2012 the above-referred police officials were sent on deputation to the jail department and thereafter on 31.5.2012 were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Jail, and further, one of them was appointed as Superintendent of Jail, Ajmer. Contending that not only the association of the police officials in the murky episode was beyond comprehension, their deputation to high posts suggests that they have been rewarded, instead of being punished appropriately. Registration of the instant petition as a public interest litigation for facilitating judicial intervention has been prayed for. 4. Contending that not only the association of the police officials in the murky episode was beyond comprehension, their deputation to high posts suggests that they have been rewarded, instead of being punished appropriately. Registration of the instant petition as a public interest litigation for facilitating judicial intervention has been prayed for. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically reiterated the above seeking an appropriate direction to the respondents to remove the aforementioned police officials from jails and to take adequate steps for appropriate administration thereof in accordance with law. 5. We have duly considered the averments made in the writ petition as well as the arguments based thereon. 6. As the petition would disclose, the petitioner has candidly admitted that the information(s) on which his assertions have been founded, is traceable to newspaper reports. That he has not submitted any representation before the appropriate authorities seeking their remedial intervention for undoing the ills of the episode and recalling the order(s) of deputation has been admitted. No explanation worth the name has also been provided to meet the delay in filing the instant petition. The petition does not disclose as to whether being aggrieved by the outcome of the investigation of any FIR, the complainant/informant/the investor affected, had pursued his/her remedy against the same in law. No such investor is before this Court. The fact that some police officials were kept under the arrangement,"Await Posting Order", does not per se demonstrate, in unmistakable terms, that they had been proved to be guilty in the scam, as alleged. The petitioner's apprehension that these police personnels, if deputed to the prison, would lead to criminalization of the said institution, besides being without any basis, is grossly speculative. 7. On the basis of the materials provided, we thus do not feel persuaded to entertain the instant petition as a public interest litigation. It is thus closed.Petition Dismissed. *******