Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3756 (ALL)

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-19

RAMESH SINHA, REKHA DIXIT

body2016
JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the respondent no.2-Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Allahabad by which the investigation of Case Crime No.654 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC has been transferred to CBCID. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the informant of the case and he has lodged an FIR on 10.7.2013 against the respondent no.5 which has been registered as Case Crime no.654 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station-Etmadaula, District-Agra. In the said case, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-respondent no.5 on 13.1.2014. Aggrieved by the same the accused-respondent no.5-Pramod Jain filed an application before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application U/S 482 No. 2988 of 2015 (Pramod Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. & another) which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2015. Thereafter, it appears that non-bailable warrant was issued on 15.9.2015 by the 12th A.C.J.M. Agra in Criminal Case no. 5216 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2013 which was again challenged by the respondent no.5 before this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 29040 of 2015 (Pramod Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. & Anr.). The second application was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28.9.2015 with a direction to the accused-respondent no.5 to appear before the court below within a period of three weeks and for the aforesaid period the non-bailable warrant was kept in abeyance. 3. Despite of the order of the High Court, the accused-respondent no.5 did not appear before the court concerned and instead approached the higher police officials for transferring the investigation. Ultimately, on the request of one MLA of the political party, namely, Dr. Laxmikant Bajpayee, the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 was passed by the State Government transferring the case from local police to CBCID for investigation. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner approached this Court through the present petition in which interim order was passed by another Bench of this Court on 10.5.2016 staying the impugned order dated 31.3.2016. 4. Laxmikant Bajpayee, the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 was passed by the State Government transferring the case from local police to CBCID for investigation. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner approached this Court through the present petition in which interim order was passed by another Bench of this Court on 10.5.2016 staying the impugned order dated 31.3.2016. 4. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Sri N.K. Verma, learned AGA for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the perusal of the impugned order transferring the investigation from the local police to the CBCID by the State Government is a non-speaking order without giving any reasons, hence the same is liable to be quashed. He vehemently argued that accused-respondent no.5 had earlier filed two 482 Cr.P.C. Applications referred above but till date has not surrendered before the court below though an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet has been dismissed by this Court and when in another 482 Cr.P.C. application he challenged the NBW issued by the court below, he was given time to appear before the court below but he has not surrendered and got the investigation transferred from local police to CBCID exerting political influence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the respondent no.5 has filed a third application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being Application U/S 482 No.34820 of 2016 (Pramod Jain Vs State of U.P. & another) in which he has challenged the summoning order dated 29.4.2016 though his earlier application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet has already been dismissed on 5.02.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the application which is stated to pending. The same is taken on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the application which is stated to pending. The same is taken on record. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent no.5 on the other hand has tried to demonstrate the dispute between the parties but he could not dispute the fact that the respondent no.5 had filed two applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet which was dismissed by the Court and the other challenging the non-bailable warrant in which he was given time to surrender before the court below but he did not surrendered and got the investigation of the case transferred from the local police to CBCID in which charge sheet was submitted and the court has already taken cognizance. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 which was passed by the respondent no.2-Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. transferring the investigation from the local police to the CBCID, no reasons have been given by the said respondent for transferring the investigation and the said order appears to have been passed at the instance of accused-respondent no.5 due to political interference, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed by this Court. Further, it apparent from the record that the accused-respondent no.5 had filed a 482 Cr.P.C. petition challenging the charge sheet of the present case and the same was dismissed by this Court on 05.02.2015 and when he did not surrendered before the court below a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and he also challenged the same in another 482 Cr.P.C. application which was disposed of by this Court on 28.09.2015 giving him time to appear before the court below but the accused-respondent no.5 did not surrendered and again filed a third 482 Cr.P.C. application no.34820 of 2016 challenging the summoning order dated 29.04.2016 which is still pending and was instrumental in getting the investigation transferred due to political interference from local police to CBCID. 9. 9. The conduct of the accused-respondent no.5 in misusing the process of law one after the other, the Court intended to impose heavy cost on him but we restrain ourselves from passing such order and only gives strict warning to him for not to act in such a manner in future. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 cannot survive and is accordingly quashed. 11. The writ petition stands allowed.