RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. M. CHAUHAN, J. Petitioner who is serving in the Chodhary Charan Singh Post Graduate College Haivara Safai District Etawah as class 4 employee has instituted the present petition for the following reliefs.

(2.) IT would transpire from the record that occurrence took place on 9th Jan 2008 at Chaudhary Charan Singh P. G. College Haivara Safai District Etawah in which the police, it is alleged, unleashed terror in the college initially by abusing and provoking the students and subsequently, resorted to firing in which one of the students died and several others sustained serious injuries as a result of police action. It is alleged that the police resorted to firing at unarmed students when examinations were going on in the college, by breaking open the gate of the college. It would further transpire that after the police had declined to lodge the report, the petitioner invoked the procedure of the Court under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and in ultimate analysis, the learned Magistrate ordered registration of the case which was registered at case crime no. 1 B of 2008 under section 147/148/149/302/307/342/506/504 IPC at P. S. Safai District Etawah. In the F. I. R as many as six police personnel have been named as culprits namely Siya Ram Sharan Aditya, S. S. P. Etawah, Rampal Gautam, Addl. Supdt of Police Etawah, Malkhan Singh Head Constable, Rajiv Dubey Constable, Krishna Saini Constable, Sanjeev Kumar Gautam Constable.

(3.) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the F. I. R. has been lodged pursuant to the order of the court under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C, a clear attempt to scuttle the fair investigation is discernible inasmuch as firstly, the investigating officer refused to meet the complainant when he tried to contact and secondly, he was not supplied copy of the F. I. R and further that the investigating officer did not record the statements of the injured witnesses and also other ocular witnesses who mattered in the case and instead recorded statements of those who were inclined to give statement on dotted lines in support of police version. The clandestine manner in which the investigation has been taken to finality, it is further argued, has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and it is discernible that attempt has been made to screen the high officers in the police echelons. The learned counsel has also imputed political vendetta to police action, further alleging that since senior police officers were involved, it was not expected that the investigating officer would conduct the investigation fairly and properly.