RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and Ms. Ainakshi Sharma for respondent No. 5, Respondent No. 5 has filed an application for vacation of our order dated 24.5.2006 whereby after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, we had had stayed the order of the State government transferring the investigation to the CBCID and had directed the local police who were initially investigating the case to conclude the investigation by 13.7.2006, the next date of listing. The State government's order dated 19.4.06 transferring the investigation to the CBCID in case crime No. 71 of 2006, under Sections 302/34 IPC, police station Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad had been made on an application of respondent No, 5, who was the wife of the absconding accused Babendra alias Babboo.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 5 has preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 2941 of 2006 before the Apex Court, which has dismissed the appeal and directed that the investigation as directed by the High Court shall be proceeded with, but it was not to be concluded before the matter was to be taken up by the High Court on 13th July, 2006. The order of the Apex Court reads as follows: Since the impugned order is an interim one, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, we direct that the investigation which is being directed by the High Court shall be continued but it shall not be concluded as directed by the High Court before the matter is taken up by the High Court on 13th July, 2006.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Government was not at all justified in transferring the investigation to the CBCID by the order dated 19.4.2006 at the instance of the accused person as this was a case of broad day light murder of the petitioner's brother Amarjit Singh under the jurisdiction of police station Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad in respect of which the petitioner had lodged a report the same day. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi 1996 VII AD(SC )752 , AIR1997 SC 93 , 1997 CriLJ63 , 1996 (4 )Crimes104 (SC ), JT1996 (9 )SC 131 , 1996 (7 )SCALE508 , (1996 )11 SCC253 for the proposition that normally the accused has no locus standi for choosing a particular agency for investigating the case against the accused. In paragraph 8 of the above law report it has been mentioned : "The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with."