S P S RATHORE Vs. MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High court in Criminal Writ petition No. 1694/1997. The said Writ petition was filed by one Mrs. Madhu alleging that the appellant, who is a high ranking Police Officer, though had molested one Ruchika (who is no longer live) , but there has been no investigation into the said incident, and such state of affairs was possible solely because the appellant is a high ranking Police Officer. There is no dispute that said Ruchika nor her parents had ever filed any complaint before any court. The incident is of year 1990. The Writ Petition was filed as late as in 1997. The daughter of the applicant mrs. Madhu was a close friend of ruchika. It transpires from the records that an inquiry had been conducted by another police officer, who prima facie, was satisfied about the truth of the allegation, and who had submitted the report to the government. But the government ultimately considered the said report along with all other materials, and was satisfied that no case for initiating even a departmental proceedings has been made out, and did not accept the said report of inquiry made by Director General of Police R. R. Singh. The High court by the impugned order, however, considered the materials, which formed the recommendation of said Shri R. R. Singh, and has come to the conclusion that a case for instituting a criminal case in the police Station for investigation into the matter has been made out, and as such directed that the investigation shall be made by the CBI authorities by an officer not less than a rank of Deputy Inspector general of CBI. The reason which prompted the High court to direct the CBI to investigate, is that Shri Rathore against whom the allegations have been made, is at present the Director General of Police, haryana, and said Director General of Police also had suggested that it would be just and proper that the investigation should be made not by the Police Authorities of the State but by an independent authority like CBI.

(2.) Mr. U. U. Lalit appearing for the appellant raised several contentious issues, including the issue of locus standi of mrs. Madhu in filing a Writ Petition, but we are not examining the merits of those issues, as in our view on the materials on record, the direction to hold an investigation cannot be held to be either without jurisdiction or arbitrary. Ultimately, therefore, the investigation into the incident has to be made by the authority of the CBI, as directed by the High court. Mr. Lalit, however, in course of his arguments, has submitted that the observations made by the High court while issuing the direction may weigh with the investigating agency or even trial Magistrate, in the event, the investigating agency files a charge-sheet, and therefore, this court should protect the appellant from that peril. Having examined the impugned judgment of the High court, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that any observations made by the High court, as regards the merits of the allegations made, are merely tentative, and should not bind either the investigating agency in course of his investigation or a Magistrate in the event the investigating agency files a charge-sheet. Needless to mention that the investigating agency shall investigate into the matter and come to his own conclusion on the basis of materials available in course of investigation, and act in accordance with law. Mr. Lalit also contended that the conclusion of the High court that the case is not covered by the ratio of this court in Bhajan Lal case tantamounts to prevent the appellant to proceed in accordance with law, if he so desires in course of the proceedings. We are of the opinion that any observations made by the High court are merely tentative in nature for the purpose of directing that the case requires an investigation to be made by an impartial agency and nothing beyond. In that view of the matter the appellant need not be apprehensive of any bias by the investigating agency while investigating into the matter. In view of what we have stated earlier alleging the apprehension in the mind of the appellant, and in view of the fact that we do not find any infirmity with the impugned direction of the High court to investigate into the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The incident being of the year 1990, the investigating agency should conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 months from today.

(3.) Mr. Mahabir Singh appearing for the state of Haryana objected to the direction of the High court directing investigation to be held by CBI on the ground that it would indicate that the investigating agency in the State of Haryana does not investigate into the matter impartially. In our view, the direction does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. The allegations being against a Police Officer, who heads the police organisation in the state, the High court was fully justified in directing the investigation to be handed over to the CBI, and Shri Rathore himself had suggested for the same.