Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 977 (RAJ)

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-12

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The complainant-petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to hand over the investigation of FIR No.37/2016 registered at Police Station Hindaun (District Karauli) for offence under Section 302 IPC to CBI or any other independent and impartial investigating agency as according to petitioner, who lodged the aforesaid FIR, the local police is not conducting the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and in protecting the person named in the FIR as accused. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the dead-body of Shri Bhupendra Singh son of complainant-Shri Satyendra Singh was found in the early morning of 8.1.2016 on a railway track and upon information provided by a Constable of GRP Chowki, Hindancity Marg Report No.1/2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and inquiry was commenced. Thereafter, petitioner lodged FIR No.37/2016 on 12.1.2016 at Police Station Hindaun (District Karauli) for offence under Section 302 IPC alleging that Shri Dharmendra Panwar, Warden of Hostel in which deceased was residing, is responsible for the murder of his son. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR investigation was undertaken which is still pending. Dissatisfied with investigation by the local police, petitioner made some representations to higher police authorities from time to time. Even after representations made by the petitioner the person named in the FIR was not made accused and arrested, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be filed with the aforesaid prayer. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he in the FIR named Shri Dharmendra Panwar as a person responsible for the murder of his son and even after making several representations to the higher authorities, the local police has not undertaken the investigation in a fair and impartial manner with a sole object to help the accused and without any basis reached to a conclusion that the deceased fell from a moving train and it is a case of accidental death and not of murder or suicide. It was further submitted that as fair and impartial investigation is not expected from the hand of the local police the same is required to be entrusted to CBI or any other independent and efficient investigating agency. 5. It was further submitted that as fair and impartial investigation is not expected from the hand of the local police the same is required to be entrusted to CBI or any other independent and efficient investigating agency. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 , Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200 and Pooja Pal v. Union of India & Ors. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the present Investigating Officer of the case on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation, which was produced before the Court in the form of case diary, submitted that after thorough and detailed investigation and looking all the aspects of the case, it has been found that the deceased fell from a moving train and it is a case of accidental death and involvement of any other person including Shri Dharmendra Panwar has not been found for the death of son of the petitioner. 7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record including the representations made by the petitioner to higher authorities and more particularly looking to the latest factual report dated 5.7.2016 and the evidence collected during investigation which is available in the case diary, I do not find it a case in which it can be said that the local police has not conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and the same is required to be entrusted to CBI or any other independent and more efficient investigating agency. From the factual report and the case diary it is revealed that initially investigation was conducted by a Police Officer of Police Station Hindaun and lateron investigation was handed over to a senior police officer of the rank of Inspector of Police but both the investigating officers after collecting evidence have come to a conclusion that the deceased fell from a moving train and it is a case of accidental death and involvement of any other person including Shri Dharemendra Panwar was not found. It is to be noted that the dead body of Shri Bhupendra Singh was found on a railway track in the early morning of 8.1.2016 and Marg report was registered and inquiry was conducted and after postmortem body of the deceased was handed over to petitioner. It is after four days that the aforesaid FIR was lodged suspecting involvement of Shri Dharmendra Panwar but no definite allegation was made against him. Even thereafter no inputs were provided by petitioner or any other person showing involvement of Shri Dharmendra Panwar or any other person in the incident and even motive for murder of deceased by Shri Dharemendra Panwar was not shown. Merely because Shri Dharmendra Panwar happens to be Warden of the Hostel in which the deceased was residing as a student of Class-XII and as per version of petitioner, Shri Dharmendra Panwar could not satisfy him for the death of Shri Bhupendra Singh it cannot be said that he was involved in the incident in any manner. 8. It is well settled legal position that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has a right to direct CBI to undertake investigation in a case but this is an extraordinary power conferred upon the Court which is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility to an 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. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record, I do not find the present case of the nature indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra). Consequently, the writ petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.