Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-07

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2020
ORDER : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred various misc. petitions and writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings taking place in pursuance of FIR No. 683/2015, registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 2. In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2198/2017, prayer made by the petitioner is for fair investigation and for seeking the matter transferring the matter to independent agency like CID (CB). 3. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 64/2016, applicant has prayed that appropriate action be taken against Superintendent of Police as well as Investigating Officer in FIR No. 683/2015, registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 4. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 280/2016, petitioner has prayed that the disciplinary action be initiated against respondent Nos. 4, 6 & 7 for opening history sheet against him. 5. Petitioner has preferred Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2548/2016 seeking quashing of investigation qua the petitioner in FIR No. 683/2015, registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 6. In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3827/2016, petitioner has prayed for fair, proper and impartial investigation. 7. It is contended by counsel for the accused-Virendra Singh that on 28.10.2015 at 02.20 pm, two persons Suraj @ Suresh and Himanshu @ Lakhi were arrested by the police and from their possession, a country made pistol 315 bore was recovered. FIR was lodged by Ramkesh Meena, S.I. In the FIR, itself Sugar Singh S/o. Charan Singh was made a witness of the recovery memo and Sugar Singh signed the recovery memo. 8. It is contended that police thereafter in connivance with Sugar Singh obtained an application in the same FIR wherein allegation was made by Sugar Singh that six persons armed with weapons came to his marriage garden on three motorcycles. In his application, he has named three persons and has also mentioned that they were looking for him and they also stated that they have been sent by Virendra Singh and Mukut Bihari @ Bhalla. On the basis of this application, the police proceeded to register the case under Section 307 of IPC. Thereafter, police registered case against Virendra Singh for offence under Section 302/115 of IPC. It is contended that a complaint was made to the CID (CB) and CID (CB) has scrutinized the case and has submitted preliminary report to the Investigating Officer from which it is revealed that the entire FIR and the investigation done thereupon by the police is concocted. 9. It is contended that a complaint was made to the CID (CB) and CID (CB) has scrutinized the case and has submitted preliminary report to the Investigating Officer from which it is revealed that the entire FIR and the investigation done thereupon by the police is concocted. 9. Counsel appearing for Virendra Singh and Manoj contends that police has filed charge-sheet but since from perusal of the FIR and the proceedings conducted by the police, it is revealed that a concocted false case has been made up by the police in connivance with Sugar Singh and the police personnel including Superintendent of Police is involved in the case, hence, the matter should be sent to CID (CB) for due investigation. 10. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer submitted before the Court on 29.04.2016 that the offence under Sections 302/115 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC has been added after consultation with concerned Circle Officer and Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. It is argued that on this account, senior Police Officers are involved in the present case. It is contended that petitioner had challenged the order of opening history sheet and the opening of history sheet was quashed by the High Court. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 202." 12. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State contends that police has filed charge-sheet against some of the accused and the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against Virendra Singh and Rinku. It is informed that police has investigated on the points pointed out by CID (CB). 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sugar Singh contends that on 28.10.2015 itself he intimated the police about the incident, which took place at his marriage garden. It is contended that police was in collusion with the accused and did not enter the complaint on 28.10.2015 and enter it on the next date i.e. 29.10.2015 in FIR No. 683/2015. 14. I have considered the contentions and have perused the FIR No. 683/2015. 15. Sugar Singh was a witness in the arrest memo of Himanshu and Suraj. It is contended that police was in collusion with the accused and did not enter the complaint on 28.10.2015 and enter it on the next date i.e. 29.10.2015 in FIR No. 683/2015. 14. I have considered the contentions and have perused the FIR No. 683/2015. 15. Sugar Singh was a witness in the arrest memo of Himanshu and Suraj. As per his complaint given to the police, which as per the police record was received on 29.10.2015, he has alleged that six persons came to his marriage garden and they told that they have been sent by Virendra Singh S/o. Sampat B/c Jat, R/o. Raisis, Raju S/o. Nibbo B/c Jat, R/o. Nadbai, Manoj S/o. Ranveer B/c Jat, R/o. Kabai and Mukut Bihari S/o. Mansingh B/c Jat, R/o. Raisis. The persons, who had come to his marriage garden were talking amongst themselves that if they do not put an end to the life of Sugar Singh, above persons would kill them. In preliminary inquiry report CID (CB) has pointed out if Sugar Singh was present at the time when present FIR was lodged and two persons were arrested, there is no reason why he had not informed the police about those two persons having come to his farm house on the same day. 16. It is also pointed out in the preliminary inquiry that police had added Section 307/120-B of IPC in the case diary at Para-6, whereas the report of the Sugar Singh was shown as received in Para-12 which as per the CBI points out the involvement of the Investigating Officer in the case. From the preliminary inquiry, it is also revealed that fake recovery was made. It is a glaring case where in initial FIR under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was offence under Section 307 of IPC was added and later offence under Section 302/115 of IPC was added by the Police Authorities. As per the Investigating Officer, the offences were added after consultation with the Circle Officer and the Superintendent of Police. 17. It is a glaring case where in initial FIR under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was offence under Section 307 of IPC was added and later offence under Section 302/115 of IPC was added by the Police Authorities. As per the Investigating Officer, the offences were added after consultation with the Circle Officer and the Superintendent of Police. 17. It is indeed strange that when Sugar Singh was present at the time when two persons were arrested and he was the attesting witness to the arrest memo, why he did not lodge the FIR at the same time and why he did not mention it to the police that those two persons had came to his marriage garden and threatened to kill him. It is only on the next date that he made up a story. The story appears to be made by for the very reason that the conversation which took place between persons who came not only mentioned the name of four persons but thereafter mentioned their father's name, their caste and their residence which no sensible person would do at the time when they have came for a particular purpose. 18. In the present case though there is a dispute that charge-sheet has been filed against Virendra Singh but even otherwise charge-sheet has been filed against some of the accused. The power to direct the CBI to investigate the case after filing of the charge-sheet although is restricted but in view of the Judgment of Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra), as also the fact that from bare perusal of the record and the proceedings conducted by the police, it appears that the police personnel are involved in implicating the accused. Hence, the matter is required to be sent to CBI for further investigation. 19. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed off with a direction to the Police Authorities of the State to handover the records of the case to the CBI Authorities within thirty days from date of receipt of this order and thereafter CBI Authorities shall take up the investigation and complete the same expeditiously. The proceedings before the Court below shall remain stayed. 20. Stay applications stand disposed. 21. Petitioner-Virendra Singh is free to file representation before the D.G.P. against alleged action of the Officers in opening of history sheet against him.