RAM MOHAN GARG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malviya, J. This petition has been filed by Sri Ram Mohan Garg claiming the relief that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the State of U. P. to register a case on the basis of the complaint made by 52 persons of Qasba Kher district Aligarh to the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh Shasan on 22nd June, 1989 in respect of an occurrence dated 15th June, 1989. This complaint, which should have been termed as first information report, has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Yet another relief claimed by the petitioner was for the issue of mandamus directing the C. B. I. Government of India to investigate the said offence and submit a charge-sheet against the offenders. Initially, the petition was filed against State of U. P. , District Magis trate, Aligarh, Senior Superintendent of Police/d. I G. Local, Aligarh, Shri Ghanshynm Singh, Chairman, IFFCO, Nehru Palace, New Delhi and Shri Raghukul Tilak Gaur, Chairman, Nagar Palika, Khair. By an order dated 6th July, 1989, the Director-General of Police, U. P. and Union of India were impleaded as respondents 6 and 7 in the said petition.

(2.) BEFORE the case was admitted, the Court'by its order dated 30th June, 1989 deemed it proper to get the counter-affidavits from the respondents con cerned. The counter-affidavits were consequently filed by Shri K. P. Singh, Senior Sub-Inspector on 5-7-1989 and yet another counter-affidavit by the same Senior Sub-Inspector was filed on 15-7-1989, counter-affidavits were filed also by Shri Roshan Dy. S. P. Kayamganj, district Faraukhabad, who was Circle Officer, Aligarh, at the relevant point of time and by Shri Ghanshyam Singh respondent No. 4 and Shri Raghukul Tilak, respondent No. 5. Four rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. Today, this case has been put up before us for admission.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the version which has given to Crime No. 168/89 is a connected version whereas the version which has been given by the complaint dated 22nd June, 1989 made to the Director-General of Police contains the correct version. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the Police had filed its own reports and had given its own version, any investigation by the local police pursuant to registration of case on the basis of the first information report lodged by the Police is bound to be a tainted investigation. It was also suggested that as cross-cases are always registered, a case should have been registered on the basis of the complaint dated 22nd June, 1989 made to the Director of Police.