PERSONAL POINT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6th June, 1996 Dr.Sunil Kaul is alleged to have left his office in the evening for-a meeting with one Mr.Subhash Gupta in his office at Okhia. He was accompanied by Mrs. Deepa Gupta, Executive Manager (Finance) and Ms.Sujata Saha, Counsellor and together they went to the office of Mr.Subhash Gupta. None of the said three persons had .returned Co their houses till late in the night. At about 11.00 p.m. Mrs.Kaul, the wife of Dr.Sunil Kaul is alleged to have received a call from the husband of Deepa inquiring about his wife as she had not yet come home by that time. Sujata's father had also called the petitioner around 11.30 p.m. to find out whereabouts of his daughter. The petitioner is alleged to have gone to the office of her husband where at about 12.00 midnight she received a call from the wife of Mr.Subhash Gupta informing her that the license of Dr.Sunil Kaul had been found at the office of Mr.Subhash Gupta. The petitioner is alleged to have gone to the house of Mrs.Gupta at about 12.45 a.m. from where she made a telephone call to the husband of Deepa to reach Police Station Chitranjan Park to lodge a report. At PS Chitranjan Park they were alleged to have been informed that she should go to Police Station Okhia. When she reached Police Station Okhia at about 03.00 p.m. the son of Mr.Subhash Gupta was already there and she was informed that an FIR has already been registered at the instance of the son of Mr.Subhash Gupta about the missing persons. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that no FIR was registered at her instance though her husband was also missing and that the police was not carrying out investigation properly in spite of the dead body of her husband having been recovered from Hodal on 7th June, 1996. On 9th June, 1996 a complaint was made by the petitioner to Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Deputy-Commissioner of Police (South District) at his residence and according to her, it was after this complaint that the police took action and arrested Mr.Subhash Gupta who had by then fled to Bombay. It is alleged that the police was not taking any action arid was not investigating the matter properly. She, therefore, wanted the investigation to be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. Luthra, Sr.Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation being carried out by the police was not proper in as much as in the first instance when the petitioner had reached Police Station Chitranjan Park, the police should have registered her complaint there and should not have asked her to go to Police Station Okhla. It is contended that valuable time had been lost in the process of sending the petitioner from Police Station Chitranjan Park to Police Station Okhia and even then the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Mr.Nitin Gupta son of Mr.Subhash Gupta and no FIR has been registered on her complaint. According to her, at the time of filing of the original complaint, the entire family of Mr.Subhash Gupta was aware about the whereabouts of Dr.Sunil Kaul and the two girls. His contention, therefore, is that the police is not properly investigating the matter and is trying to shield the family of Subhash Gupta.

(3.) What should be the standard of investigation and who would judge the same? Can it be left to the petitioner to say that the investigation being carried out by the police is not proper? Is investigation to be judged from the view point of the petitioner and whether the Court should direct the investigation to be transferred merely because the complainant is not satisfied with the manner the investigation being carried out by the police? These are the questions I have been asked to decide in this case.