KM. RACHANA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no.1 & 2 to transfer the investigation of the Case Crime No.264/10 under section 364 I.P.C. PS. Cant District Bareilly from local police to some other independent agency to get fair investigation of the same according to law.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she is resident of 339, PS Sadar Bazar, Police Line, PS. Cant, District Bareilly. There is temple of petitioner's family known as Dhopeshwar Mahadev Birajman Mandir Bhopa, Sadar Bazar Bareilly. The grand father of the petitioner Late Mahant Gokaran Giri, aged about 95 years was the Mahant and Manager of the said temple. In respect of the properties belonging to the temple there was a old grant in favour of Hindu Community and the ancestor of the petitioner's family were looking after the management and Puja. The said temple is situated in Cant area District Bareilly. The temple consists of building of the temple, Thakurdwara, New Durga Mandir, Vaishno Ji Mandir, Hanumanji Ka Mandir, Sai Dev Mandir, Ardhnarishwar and Gufa, Dhopeshwar Nath Park, Dhopeshwar Nath Tank. Apart from the said building/property of the temple Dhopeshwar Nath Mahadev Temple, there are six residential houses situated in Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Cant Bareilly within the premises of the said temple. There are ten shops. Out of ten shops, five shops are in possession of the respondent no.5 who has put his locks and closed the same. There is open land adjacent to the premises of the said temple measuring about 15 bighas. The entire constructed and open land which are in possession of the family of the petitioner and belongs to the said temple are measuring about 30 bighas. Hence there are huge movable and immovable property which were being managed by and under control of late Mahant Gokaran Giri for the last several years. The respondent no.5 Virendra Singh Gangwar, M.L.A of the then ruling party in the State, wanted to grab the management and properties of the said temple with the help of his supporters and the district administration was also supporting him. In connivance with the District Administration and certain officials of the cantonment board he tried to create a trust and constituted a committee of management, for management of the properties of the Mandir consisting off his own persons. He also tried to interfere in the management and affairs of the temple. He had also given threat to the life and properties of late grand father of the petitioner namely Mahant Gakaran Giri regarding which complaint was lodged to the concerned authorities but due to influence of respondents no.5 no action was taken to protect the life and property of late Mahant Gokaran Giri and property of the temple. As there was threat to grand father of the petitioner and other family members to their lives, hence the representation was sent to the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi and other concerned authorities. When there was no response from the above mentioned authorities, then the Writ Petition No.34761/2009 was filed to issue direction to the district administration and S.S.P. Bareilly, to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing protection to his life and liberty. The division bench of this Court disposed off the writ petition on 21.7.2009, directing the District Magistrate, Bareilly to consider the claim of the petitioner, late Mahant Gokaran Giri filed a copy of the order before the District Magistrate, Bareilly, however, he did not decide the representation and no step was taken for protection and he was not communicated regarding any decision and order passed by the District Magistrate, hence the contempt petition was filed. Thereafter again the Writ Petition No.67407 was filed for providing security for protection of the life of late Mahant Gokaran Giri and other family members. In that writ petition the respondent.5 was also arrayed as respondent no.6 and that writ petition was decided by order dated 11.12.2009 with direction to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Again an application was filed to provide protection or to pass any order on the representation. The petitioner was not communicated by any order. Subsequently when the counter affidavit was filed in the present writ petition it was communicated that the representation was decided by the District Magistrate. Inspite of pressure and threat from the side of the respondent no.5 and his supporters late Mahant Gokaran Giri did not surrender before him. Thereafter on 13.2.2010 respondent no.5 along with his associates illegally entered into the premises of temple and abducted late Mahant Gokaran Giri, the grand father of the petitioner, regarding which the First Information Report was lodged on the same day and registered as Case Crime No.264/10 under section 364 I.P.C. at Police Station Cantt, Bareilly, subsequently the dead body was recovered from the pond. The investigating officer who was under the influence of the respondent no.5, failed to make fair investigation and due to political pressure forwarded final report dated 4.4.2010 stating therein that the deceased Mahant Gokaran Giri committed suicide by observing Jal Samadhi but the Circle Officer/Additional S.P. before whom the final report was forwarded, found some contradiction in the investigation and as such directed for further investigation. However, again final report dated 17.7.2010 was submitted under to influence of respondent no.5, disclosing the opinion, that it was an accidental death and not a murder.