Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3708 (ALL)

SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2016-11-15

RAMESH SINHA, REKHA DIXIT

body2016
JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 2-State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow to handover the investigation of case crime no. 241 of 2015 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 504, 506, 427, 458 I.P.C. and 7 C.L.A. Act, police station Jarcha, District Gautam Budh Nagar to Central Bureau of Investigation and further stay the proceedings of case no. 2695 of 2015 arising out of the said case. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged by one Ikramun wife of Akhlaq on 28.9.2015 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 427, 458 I.P.C. and 7 C.L.A. Act at police station Jarcha, District Gautam Budh Nagar against 10 named and 4-5 unknown persons with respect to an incident said to have taken place on 28.9.2015 at 22:00-23:00 hours which was registered as case crime no. 241 of 2015 at 23:30 hours. In the said incident, the husband and son of the informant, namely, Akhlaq and Danish have received serious injuries at the hands of accused persons named in the F.I.R., who were armed with lathi, danda and sword etc. Subsequently, the husband of the informant, namely, Akhlaq succumbed to his injuries, hence the case was converted under section 302 I.P.C. 3. On 29.9.2015, the police also took possession of suspected flesh weighing about 2 kg., four legs and skin of animal from the place of occurrence, i.e., village Bisada in the presence of witnesses. The said sample was sent to Forensic Veternity Laboratory Mathura on the same day by the Veterinary Hospital Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The investigation of the case was carried out and charge-sheet dated 22.12.2015 has been submitted against accused persons named in the F.I.R. before the competent court at district Gautam Budh Nagar on which the court has taken cognizance and case has been committed to the Court of Session on 18.9.2016. The trial of the present case is pending before the Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Gautam Budh Nagar being S.T. No. 148 of 2016 State vs. Rupendra & others which is at the stage of framing of charges against the accused persons. 4. The trial of the present case is pending before the Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Gautam Budh Nagar being S.T. No. 148 of 2016 State vs. Rupendra & others which is at the stage of framing of charges against the accused persons. 4. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Imran Ullah, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amit Mishra holding brief of Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Union of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the informant/complainant of the occurrence but he and his family members have been victimized only on account of the fact that petitioner no. 1 is an active member of the Ruling Political Party at Centre. He submitted that on hearing the announcement of loudspeaker, petitioner no. 1 immediately informed the police at 10:45 p.m. by dialing 100 number. He argued that the police under the political pressure as well as local administration suppress the occurrence and the petitioner no. 1 as well as his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the suspected animal flesh recovered from the house of the deceased Akhlaq has been sent for laboratory examination but deliberately for oblique motive the same has not been brought on record in order to conceal real fact of the case. He further argued that charge-sheet has also been submitted without bringing on record the veterinary report of the sample taken from the house of the deceased Akhlaq. He urged that petitioner no. 2 Suraj Singh commonly known as Sanjay Rana also made a complaint before the S.S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar which is sent by registered post and he also informed the D.I.G. and other authorities stating that the occurrence took place on the outrageous statement of Akhlaq upon which the angry mob of public attacked the house of Akhlaq. He lastly argued that the entire investigation is tainted one and under the political as well as administration influence which requires fair investigation through C.B.I. or any other independent agency. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court has power to direct for transfer of investigation. He lastly argued that the entire investigation is tainted one and under the political as well as administration influence which requires fair investigation through C.B.I. or any other independent agency. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court has power to direct for transfer of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court, i.e., in the case of R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1994 (Sup 1) SCC 143 and in the case of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and others decided on 22nd January, 2016 and on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.S. Pandey vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (57) ACrC 505. 6. Per contra, Sri Imran Ullah, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that as per the F.I.R., the informant/complainant of the present case is Ikramun wife of deceased Akhlaq, who had lodged the present F.I.R. of the incident as is evident from the F.I.R. itself and the claim of the petitioners that they are the informant/complainant of the case is wholly unwarranted. He further pointed that from the averments made in the petition it has been alleged by the petitioners that it was on their information, the police has arrived and the report of the suspected flesh which was recovered has been deliberately withheld to conceal the origin of the incident by the prosecution under the influence of the State Government and local administration is absolutely false and baseless. He contended that petitioner no. 1 Sanjay Singh is father of accused Vishal Singh, who is named in the F.I.R. and is in jail till date. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 4.4.2016 passed by the trial court wherein it is stated that the report of Forensic Veterinary laboratory where the suspected meat was sent has been received and the same is available before the trial court. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 4.4.2016 passed by the trial court wherein it is stated that the report of Forensic Veterinary laboratory where the suspected meat was sent has been received and the same is available before the trial court. He argued that the allegation made in the petition that the investigation is tainted one due to influence of the local administration and the State Government is absolutely incorrect as police after thorough investigation and recording of statement of the informant and witnesses along with other documents has submitted charge-sheet against 10 accused persons, who are confined in jail in the present case out of which one accused died during the pendency of trial. He further argued that as per the order-sheet annexed the affidavit of compliance dated 18th November, 2016, it is apparent that accused are lingering on the trial on one count or the other and not allowing the trial to proceed and also avoiding the framing of charge. He submitted that the accused have filed bail application before this Court and till date none of the accused have been granted bail by any Court of law. He submitted that the matter is pending trial and the investigation was carried out in unbiased manner by the police of the State, hence the prayer made by the petitioners for transferring of the investigation to the C.B.I. or any other independent agency is another step to linger on the trial and the petition should be dismissed by this Court as it has no merit. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is an admitted fact that charge-sheet has been submitted against 10 accused persons named in the F.I.R. before the court below which has taken cognizance of the offence in question and the case has been committed to the trial court and is fixed for framing of charge. The report of forensic veterinary laboratory regarding the suspected meat is also available on record before the trial court, hence the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the report of veterinary laboratory has been deliberately withheld by the prosecuting agency for oblique motive has no substance. The report of forensic veterinary laboratory regarding the suspected meat is also available on record before the trial court, hence the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the report of veterinary laboratory has been deliberately withheld by the prosecuting agency for oblique motive has no substance. Moreover, the petitioners are not the informant/complainant of the case which is also evident from the F.I.R. itself as the same has been lodged by the wife of the deceased Akhlaq, namely, Ikramun and on the basis of statement of the informant and other witnesses during the course of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in the competent court and the trial is pending against the accused persons named in the F.I.R. The petitioner no. 1 happens to the father of co-accused Vishal Singh and it appears that due to his oblique motive, he has filed the present petition just to linger on the trial and the accused are avoiding framing of charge by the trial court on one count or the other which is reflected from the order-sheet of the present case which is on record. 9. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & others reported in SCC (2010) 3 571 has laid down the circumstances in which the case has to be ordered for investigation by the C.B.I. For ready reference paras-45, 46 and 47 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "45. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 46. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. 47. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr.31, MANU/SC/0441/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 521 , this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations." 10. We respectfully concur with these observations." 10. The proposition of law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & others (Supra) was also dealt by the Apex Court in a recent case of Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160 . 11. In view of the forgoing discussions, we find no good ground for transferring the investigation of the present case to the C.B.I. or any other independent agency.