UMED SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated i4th December, 2006 filed as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively passed by the police Headquarter, Crime Investigation Department, (hereinafter referred to as 'cid'), Bhopal transferring investigation into two first information reports registered at Police Station, Kailaras, District Morena for enquiry and investigation.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition are that certain incident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police station, Kailaras on 29th March, 2006, in which it was stated that the petitioners were attacked by various persons as indicated in Paragraph 5. 1 of the petition. Because of the aforesaid incident, a First Information Report was lodged by the petitioners being Crime No. 81/06 on 29th March, 2006 for offence under sections 302,307,147 and 149, IPC. The report on the basis of which said case was registered was lodged by petitioner No. 1, Umed Singh who is said to be present on the spot. Another report was lodged by one Kamlesh Dhakad against some of the petitioners as indicated in Paragraph 5. 1 of the petition. This report lodged by Kamlesh Dhakad was registered at Crime No. 80/2006 on the same day, i. e. , 29th March, 2006 by Police Station, Kailaras. Copies of the First information Reports on the basis of which the aforesaid crimes were registered are filed as Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the fight in question took place because of some caste rivalry and various other factors. At this stage, these questions are not required to be gone into by this Court as the merits of the complaints lodged by both the parties making allegations against each other is not very relevant for deciding the question involved in this writ petition. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners that with a view to frustrate the enquiry into the complaint lodged by the petitioners, a very peculiar method was devised and by the impugned orders. Annexures P-1 and P-2, the enquiry into the matter has been handed over to the cid in an arbitrary fashion. Shri K. S. Shriyastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners taking me through the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of investigation of an offence by the CID, as contained in the case of Sanjay Singh and others Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2006 (2) MPLJ 324, argued that the action taken is unsustainable. Taking me through the judgment and observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, shri K. S. Shrivastava emphasised that in the present case, action taken for transferring of the enquiry to the CID is wholly unsustainable. It was emphasised by. Shri K. S. Shrivastava that the matter was transferred only to frustrate a proper enquiry into the matter and to grant some undue benefit to the other party who had attacked the petitioners. Shri K. S. Shrivastava emphasised that this contention stands established as after enquiry into the matter, the CID has submitted some report exonerating all the persons against whom Crime no. 81/06 has been lodged and directed for registration of the case and prosecution of not only persons who were named in the First Information report but also nine other persons whose names does not find place in the First information Report lodged in Crime Nos. 80/06 and 81/06. Shri Shrivastava emphasises that the petitioner Nos. 7,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 are persons whose name do not find place in the First Information Report in spite thereof they have been falsely implicated and are being prosecuted for having committing the offence. It was emphasised that the manner in which the investigation was transferred to CID and the manner in which the investigation was done by the CID and report submitted is highly illegal, contrary to law, settled norms of justice and it is contended that right of the petitioners for a fair and proper investigation into the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions is being frustrated and the entire action stands vitiated in the light of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Singh and others (supra ). Shri Shrivastava prays for interference into the matter by this court. Even though during the course of hearing, Shri Shrivastava by taking me through the factual aspects of the matter tried to demonstrate that the action taken is vitiated by bias, ill-intention and malafide but at this stage. I am of the considered view that this question need not be looked into in this writ petition.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid contention raised by Shri K. S. Shrivastava and rebutting the averments made in this petition, the State Government has filed a return. In the return, the facts with regard to registration of Crime nos. 80/06 and 81/06 at Police Station, Kailaras is not disputed, nor is it disputed that on 14th December, 2006. The Additional Director General of Police, CID has passed the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2. It is the case of the respondents that during the investigation of the crimes in question, it was established that the petitioners have committed offence and they had lodged a false report levelling false allegations against the opposite party. Thereafter, it is stated that reports were received, cases were registered and investigation into the allegations made by both the parties commenced. However, in Paragraph 4 of the return, the reasons for transfer of the cases to the CID is indicated and the only reason indicated is that while the local police was investigating into the matter, both the parties were not co-operating in the matter of investigation, accused persons were absconding and witnesses were not coming forward for recording of their statements. It is stated that both the parties expressed their displeasure and stated that they have no faith in the local police. Accordingly, the Station House Officer recommended to the Superintendent of Police, morena to handover investigation to the CID because the local police was facing hurdles in the matter of investigation due to the conduct of the parties. The reports submitted by the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of police are filed as Annexures R-1 and R-2 to indicate that the Additional director General of Police, CID has acted in the matter without any malafide or bias only because of the recommendations made by the Superintendent of police, Morena and the proper investigation has been completed by the CID, shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no illegality in the matter warranting interference in these proceedings.