HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed by the High Court Bar Association, Manipur and another, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether or not the FIR 228(6)11 Prompat P.S. under Section 323/357/34 IPC registered on 24.6.2011 should be handed over to the C.B.I., which is the premier investigating agency of this country, for investigation. According to the petitioners, the controversy arose out of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2, who is an employee/attendant of, and is engaged in distributing the cause lists of this Court to the members of, the High Court Bar Association, Manipur i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and has claimed that he had been repeatedly detained by some armed Police personnel, who are deployed in and around Wangkhei Durga Puja Lampak, Imphal East District without any rhyme or reason even after he showed them his identity card issued by the petitioner No. 1. He explained to these police personnel that he was on duty to distribute the cause lists of this Court to the advocates/members of the petitioner No. 1; by showing to them the bundle of the cause lists carried by him. On 9.6.2011 at about 7-20 P.M., he was once again stopped by these police personnel, the occupants of Gypsy vehicle belonging to Manipur Police bearing registration number MN-1/W-3632 when he was proceeding along the Wangkhei Kiongba Road by his bicycle for distribution of the cause lists. This time, he was assaulted by them for about 20 minutes on the road by branding him as a member of PREPAK, a banned/unlawful organization. They also threatened his life by pointing their firearms over his head and forced him to confess that he is a member of the said banned outfit or otherwise he would be shot dead. His plea to them to stop their assault by showing his identity card and the cause lists carried by him did not yield any desired result. On the contrary, one of the concerned police personnel snatched away the bundle of the cause lists from his hand and threw away the same towards water drains. He was also warned not to distribute the cause lists thenceforth. Fearing for his life, he did not distribute the cause lists for the sitting of this Court on 10.6.2011. The aforesaid incident was reported by him to the petitioner No. 1 through the written report dated 10.6.2011.

(2.) IT is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1, on the basis of the said written report of the petitioner No. 2, convened an emergency meeting on 10.6.2011 at about 11.30 A.M., and a number of resolutions were passed in that meeting, among others, condemning the highhandedness of the police and demanding immediate action against the culprits. Copies of the resolutions together with the written report of the petitioner No. 2 were immediately communicated to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 3 and some other police officials of the Imphal East District thereafter met the Secretary of the petitioner No.1 and gave him an oral assurance that appropriate action would be initiated against the police personnel involved in the incident. In the meantime, the Officer-in-Charge of Porompat Police Station, who is arraigned as respondent 4, instead of disciplining the erring police personnel, forcibly entered the Office of the petitioner No. 1 on 10.6.2011 when the emergency meeting was going on and threatened the petitioner No. 2 with dire consequences by showing his right index finger and by saying the following words in vernacular:

(3.) UNFOLDING his submissions, Mr. HNK Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, maintains that keeping in view the allegations made against police personnel, to allow the CID (Crime Branch) to investigate into the case will amount to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar, and no impartial and effective investigation can be made by the CID (CB), who are admittedly under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Director General of Police, Manipur. According to the learned senior counsel, the fact that the police, albeit belatedly, has registered a regular case under Section 323/357/34 IPC on the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 2 goes to show that a prima facie case has been made out to launch a full-scale investigation in the complaint of the petitioner No. 2. He also contends that the fact that the case is sensitive in nature has also been admitted by the answering respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is more than enough to hand over the case to the CBI for a fair and an impartial investigation into the case: the CID(Crime Branch) cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as an impartial investigating authority in so far as this case involving police personnel concerned. He reminds this Court that the functioning of this Court was paralysed for some days by the strike organised by the members of the petitioner No. 1 to highlight the indifferent attitude of the State-respondents. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the acts complained against indirectly amounts to an interference in the due administration of justice by this Court, and to ensure that such an incident does not occur in future, the real culprits must be found out and brought to justice, which can be achieved only if the case is investigated by the premier investigative agency of this country. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677 to fortify his submissions. Refuting the contentions of the learned senior counsel, Mr. R.S. Reisang, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that this is not a fit case for directing the CBI to carry out the investigation inasmuch as the allegations made in the complaint does not make out a prima facie case nor does it disclose a sensitive case or grave cases of misappropriation involving huge public money as otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a number of cases of routine nature. He also submits that this Court does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an alternative remedy of conducting an investigation by an impartial body CID (Crime Branch), which cannot be influenced by the answering respondents. In support of his contentions, the learned State counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409; (ii) Secretary Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 and (iii) Common Cause, a registered society Vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition.