SHAILENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

(2.) From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet dated 5.3.2009 has been submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate concerned on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance on 18.3.2009 and thereafter, after following due procedure the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. At the stage of pendency of the trial, on the application moved by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, wife of accused Satpal Verma, the National Human Rights Commission has taken the decision recommending the State Government to have the investigation by CBCID. In pursuance of the order dated 17.7.2012 the State Government also took the decision for transferring the investigation of the abovementioned case to CBCID. It appears that the real facts have not been brought to the notice of the National Human Rights Commission and the State Government including the fact that in the present case investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court concerned. After taking the cognizance the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions trial is pending. According to The National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994, the procedure for dealing with complaints has been defined in Regulation 8 in which conditions for entertaining the complaints have been specified. Regulation 8 reads as under: