JAIVEER KASHYAP Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by what is alleged by him to be deliberate and shoddy investigation by police authorities into the murder of his brother Dharamvir. The brief facts are that on 14.5.2011, the petitioner's brother Dharamvir, who was carrying cash, was allegedly assaulted and robbed of Rs. 12,000 by the accused Ajay and few others. The petitioner was present there at that time, and witnessed the incident.

(2.) The accused fled from the scene on a motorcycle. The petitioner claims to have photographed the rear number plate and gave the first information of the crime to PCR from his mobile phone. He took his injured brother to the hospital where he later died. The local police recorded a DD entry, based on information received by PCR from the petitioner's mobile number. It is alleged that one HC Omprakash instead impersonated himself as the complainant/first informant, and describing the incident as an accident, got a false FIR No. 198/2011 registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, and recorded that he could not find the petitioner or any other eye witness, despite the fact that the petitioner gave H.C. Omprakash a detailed account of the incident, told him about the incident and also disclosed the whereabouts and names of some of the offenders, at the hospital. The IO/SHO forged the petitioner's signature on a paper to frame his false statement describing the incident as a mere quarrel. This denied the petitioner the right to receive a copy of the FIR under section 154(2), Cr. P.C. as well as to receive a communication u/s 173(2)(ii), Cr. P.C. as to the action taken by the police. The IO/SHO further gave a press release mentioning the incident as only a case of road rage. Moreover, he also deliberately framed a false site map of the crime scene, omitted to find the owner of the motor cycle involved, omitted to find the nexus between ASI Satbir with the accused, and also failed to take on record even the record of the PCR van's report to PCR dated 14.5.2011 which disclosed offences under section 302/397, IPC. The petitioner reported to DCP North East that an ASI posted at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, was related to the accused Ajay Kumar and was patronizing a gang committing robbery etc on motorcycles bearing police logo, and that the local police were slanting the record in the abovementioned matter and that he was being threatened by members of the gang to not be an eye witness. But upon failure of the DCP to act, on 25.5.2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. praying for registration of another FIR based on his report, and seeking police protection. The Magistrate ordered the registration of another FIR, but did not direct providing police protection to the petitioner. Finally, an incomplete investigation report was submitted under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. on 10.8.2011 without giving any information to the petitioner under section 173(2)(ii). The petitioner filed an application under Section 173(8) for direction that further investigation be conducted. Learned ASJ, by the impugned orders, all dated 7.1.2012 dismissed the petitioner's applications for further investigations, hastened to frame charges based on the incomplete investigation, charged the accused for offences under section 34/302, IPC but did not frame charge them under section 397, IPC and directed the prosecution to lead evidence. Thus, this writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(3.) TO show that that the writ petition is maintainable, learned counsel placed reliance on K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (8) SCALE 583 where it was held that the rule of law is a basic feature of our Constitution. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had in Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others, : (2006) 1 SCC 442 held that access to justice is a human right.