Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1584 (RAJ)

Pushpa v. State of Rajasthan Through PP, Jaipur

2018-07-27

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. It is a matter of pain and anguish to record the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/aggrieved-wife that in an ordinary matrimonial dispute where the investigation was twice conducted and the Investigating Agency came to a conclusion that the husband and his relatives are to be prosecuted upon complaint filed by the petitioner/aggrieved-wife, at the intervention of the Office of the Home Minister, investigation has been transferred to C.I.D. (C.B.). 2. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the investigation, under the directions of the Superintendent of Police (Civil Rights), Rajasthan, Jaipur, was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Special Crime Branch investigate the matters, which have wide ramifications and only those important matters which deal with organized crime and law & order can be transferred to C.I.D. (C.B.). It is submitted that there was no justification to transfer ordinary husband-wife dispute to the C.I.D. (C.B.) and that too, on the intervention of the Office of the Home Minister. Counsel has further submitted that the husband wield political influence and, thus, on-going investigation has been trampled and this amounts to interference in criminal administration of justice. 4. Today, Shri Narendra Singh Rathore, Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur is present in person before this Court and has produced the case file. 5. The said file contains the orders whereby investigation was transferred to the Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur. 6. 4. Today, Shri Narendra Singh Rathore, Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur is present in person before this Court and has produced the case file. 5. The said file contains the orders whereby investigation was transferred to the Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur. 6. The Photostat copy of the said order is retained on the record and the same is also reproduced herein below for ready reference :- ^^dk;kZy; vfrfjDr egkfuns'kd iqfyl] flfoy jkbZV~l] jktLFkku t;iqjA Øekad %& l-9 ¼1½ lhvkj@vUosŒ@eŒvŒ@Hkjriqj@18@299&344 fnukad 26-06-2018 dk;kZy; vkns'k vŒlŒ 118@18 fnukad 05-02-18 /kkjk 498 ,] 406 Hkknla] iqfyl Fkkuk eFkqjk xsV ftyk Hkjriqj dk vuqla/kku rqjUr izHkko ls flfoy jkbZV~l 'kk[kk esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k izLkkfjr fd;s tkrs gSA mDr vfHk;ksx ekuuh; x`g ea=h dk;kZy; jktLFkku ljdkj] (emphasis supplied) t;iqj ds funsZ'kkuqlkj LFkkuh; iqfyl ls LFkkukUrfjr fd;k tkdj vkxkeh vuqla/kku gsrq vfrŒ iqfyl v/kh{kd] lhvkbZMh¼lhch½ jsat lsy Hkjriqj dks lqiqnZ fd;k tkrk gSA vfrŒ iqfyl v/kh{kd] lhvkbZMh¼lhch½ jsat lsy Hkjriqj mDr izdj.k dk ,D'ku Iyku vuqla/kku i=koyh izkfIr ds rhu fnol esa] izFke izxfr izfrosnu 07 fnol esa rFkk izR;sd dsl Mk;jh fdrk gksus ds rhu fnol ds Hkhrj eq[;ky; dks izsf"kr djsaxsA ;s mDr vfHk;ksx dk vuqla/kku Rofjr xfr ls iw.kZ djsaxh rFkk 30 fnol esa vuqal/kku iw.kZ dj fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa rF;kRed fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsaxsA ¼ije T;ksfr½ iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼flfoy jkbZVl½ jktLFkku] t;iqjA^^ 7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State could not justify the transfer of the ordinary matrimonial dispute to the C.I.D. (C.B.), especially when the complainant has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that earlier Investigating Officer - A.S.I. Shrida Sharma, came to a conclusion that offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are made out. Complainant, in the said affidavit, has further submitted that again the matter was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for re-investigation. He also in his report in May, 2018 came to a conclusion that prima-facie offence is made out and accused are required to be arrested. It is further submitted in the affidavit that the bail application of the accused was dismissed as not pressed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur on 12.06.2018. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant contends that having failed to obtain the bail, the accused secured orders from the Office of the Home Minister and got the investigation transferred. 9. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant contends that having failed to obtain the bail, the accused secured orders from the Office of the Home Minister and got the investigation transferred. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State could not spell out any special reason for transfer the investigation, except that the complaint was received by the Office of the Home Minister. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the order dated 26.06.2018 passed at the behest of Office of Home Minister by the Additional Director General of Police (Civil Rights), Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby the investigation was transferred to the Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Range Cell, Bharatpur is, hereby, quashed. The local Police is directed to conclude the investigation within a period of fifteen-days and submit report of investigation, along with the opinion of the Investigating Officer, in terms of the status/ progress report dated 13.06.2018 filed by S.H.O. Police Station, Mathuragate, Bharartpur in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. 11. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.