RAJMANI RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dharmdeo Rai respondent no. 7 lodged a First Information Report under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC, at 1.30 PM. on 29-1-1998 at P.S. Cantt. District Gorakhpur alleging that the petitioner-Rajmani Rai and his companions fired upon Kamlesh Rai at about 12.30 PM. on the same day due to which he received serious injuries. Kamlesh Rai succumbed to his injuries and the case was converted into one under section 302 IPC. It appears that initially an order was passed by the State Government on 6-2-1998 directing that the investigation of the case shall be conducted by the C.B.C.I.D. Subsequently another order was passed on 15/16-5-1998 whereby earlier order directing investigation by C.B.C.I.D. was rescinded and the investigation was handed over to the Civil Police. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the subsequent order dated 15/16-5-1998.

(2.) We have heard Sri. Ranjit Saxena for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned AG.A for the State and have examined the record. The circumstances under which a criminal case would require investigation by C.B.C.I.D. have been mentioned in the G.O. issued by the State Government on 15-9-1995. The G.O. provides the following four categories of the cases, which may be directed to be investigated by C.I.D.

(3.) In a Division Bench decision rendered in Bhopal and others v. State of U.P. and another to which one of us (G.P. Mathur, J) was a party, the aforesaid G.O. has been quoted in Hindi in extenso and this question has been considered thread bare. It is not necessary to reproduce the principle laid down in the aforesaid case. The F.I.R. of the present case shows that the incident took place in broad day-light at 12.30 in the afternoon at the gate of St. Andrews College in the city of Gorakhpur. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged at 1.30 P.M. at PS. Cantt. The occurrence was seen by many persons: The material on record does not at all show that the case is of such a nature which may require investigation by C.B.C.I.D. As held in the case of Bhopal (supra) section 21 of D.P. General Clauses Act gives ample powers to the State Government to rescind the order which investigation had been earlier entrusted to C.B.C.I.D. and such power can be exercised at any subsequent stage. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties we find no ground for interference by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.