RAVI KANT GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 - Central Bureau of Investigation. Counter affidavit on behalf of State-respondents has been filed. For our perusal, the learned Government Advocate placed before us the case diary, which is taken on record.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his son Laxmi Kant alias Neeraj Gupta met an unnatural death on 14.8.2010. The body of the victim was taken to the hospital by the petitioner, where he was declared dead. The information about the unnatural death was received by the Police from the Emergency Medical Officer of the District Hospital. Post-mortem was conducted and inquest report prepared on 15.8.2010. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he approached the Police authorities time and again for lodging the F.I.R. which was not lodged. Ultimately on 3.3.2011 the petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3). Cr. P.C. which was opposed by the State-respondents by filing objections. However, by a detailed and reasoned order dated 23.3.2011 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur directed for lodging of F.I.R. Still when no proper investigation was being conducted by the Police authorities, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer the investigation of the Case Crime No. 499 of 2011, under Section 302. Cr. P.C. Police Station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) mainly on the ground that the Police is not conducting a fair investigation in the matter and is influenced by some senior Minister of the State of U. P.

(3.) The prayer made in this writ petition has been opposed by the learned Government Advocate who has submitted that there has been fair investigation in the matter. It has been urged that though initially the F.I.R. may not have been lodged by the Police but twice enquiry was conducted on the administrative side by the Police officials and nothing was found in the matter warranting lodging of F.I.R.