RATANLAL NATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.B. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri B. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner as well as Sri S. Das, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 did not file any affidavit in this case. In view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proposes to dispose of this case at the admission stage and accordingly, his writ petition is being disposed of by the following judgment. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus, and/or any appropriate writ of the like nature commanding the investigation to be conducted by an independant investigating agency afresh relating to Sedhai Police Station Case No. 171 of 1994 under Section -307/118 I.P.C., and also for quashing the impugned order dated 28.4.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Went Tripura whereby the final report submitted in connection with the Sedhai Police Station Case No. 171 of 1994 was accepted.

(2.) The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows : The writ petitioner Sree Ratani Lal Nath is an Advocate by profession of Agartala Bar and he is also an elected and sitting M.L.A. of the Tripura Legislative Assembly from No. 2 Mohonpur Assembly Constituency. He is also the General Secretary of Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee and also an elected member of All India Congress Committee. According to the writ petitioner the respondent No. 1 State of Tripura committed some fatal illegalities and irregularities regarding the appointment of Panchyat Election Commission, regarding delimitation of Panchayats and also preparation of Electoral Rolls relating to Panchyat Election, Being dis-setisfied, the petitioner moved this Court in a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Civil Rule No. 74 of 1994 against the respondent No.1 and others. In the State of Tripura, the Indian National Congress to which the petitioner belongs and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) are the rival major political parties. After the litigation relating to the Panchayat Election was over, the respondent No.l held Panchayat Election through-out the State and that date of poll was fixed on 27.8.1994 in West Tripura District including the Panchayat Constituencies falling under Sedhai Police Station. The writ petitioner being political dedicated person, people representative as well as organisational office bearer took utmost endeavour in electioneering the said Panchayat Election during the month of July and August, 1994. The petitioner supervised the election machineries of the parties on 27.8.1994, the date of poll for the three tire panchayat system under Sedhai Police Station in order to ensure free and fair election and also for giving protection to the congress volunteers around different polling stations within the jurisdiction of the said Sedhai Police Station on the said date viz 27.8.1994. The petitioner having supervised and observed the progress of election at Ishanpur proceeded towards Mohanpur being accompanied by party workers and one A.D.C. Member namely Subodh Deb Barma with three jeeps and one Maruti van which were hired by the petitioner's party for the aforesaid purpose. Those vehicles bearing registration No. namely TR-01-2124, TR- 01-2518, TRT-1308, TR-01-0467 (Maruti). At the relevant time the petitioner was sitting in the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-2518. By virtue of this Court's order passed in Civil Rule No. 195 of 1994, the petitioner was provided with Armed escort numbering five and to accommodate the escort party of the petitioner and his workers four vehicles as stated above had been with the petitioner. While the petitioner along with his company as stated above reached in front of Ishanpur PACS office having a distance of less than 1 K.M. from Ishanpur school towards south, the petitioner saw and heard that the 3rd respondent namely Sri Anil Sarkar, a Cabinet Minister ordered his escort party to open fire to the petitioner and without delay, the escort party of the 3rd respondent opened 7/8 rounds fire from their 303 rifles and two round of firing hit directly the vehicle bearing registration No. TRT-1308 in which the petitioner's party workers were sitting. Fortunately the bullets could not hit any person though attempt was made to kill the petitioner at the instance of the 3rd respondent without any reason or provocation. After observing the situation the petitioner's escort party got down and cried out identifying them to be the police personnel and requested for stopping the firing and no further firing happened. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his fellow workers rashed to Sedhai Police Station on the same day i.e. 27.8.1994 at about 4 p.m. and lodged an FIR being written by congress worker Sri Madan Mohan Saha at the dictation of the petitioner himself. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over the written FIR to the Duty Officer, S.I. Santi Das as the O/C 2nd respondent, was not in Police Station building at that moment. It is also the case of the petitioner that before handing over the written FIR, it is noticed that the 3rd respondent along with his security personnel and accompanying an employee namely Dilip Kr. Dey entered in the Police Station building and started rebuking with filthy and provocating languages and threatened the petitioner. After few days the petitioner learnt that the 2nd respondent instead of registering the petitioner's FIR as stated above registered another FIR bearing Sedhai Police Station Case No. III of 1994 as against the petitioner and the said FIR was lodged by the said Dilip Kr. Dey, a Govt. employee of the 3rd Respondent. Being apprehended, the petitioner moved and anticipatory bail petition before this Court under Crl. Original Petition No. 189 of 1994 in connection with the said case. While disposing the said Criminal Original Petition No. 189 of 1994 this Court by an order dated 16.12.1994 allowed the 2nd respondent to take a carbon copy of the complaint of the petitioner as available in the said Criminal Original Petition and treat it as FIR and take all necessary action in accordance with law provided he is satisfied that the said complaint, prima facie, discloses the commission of cognizable offences. This Court further directed the petitioner to lodge appropriate complaint with the Officer-In-Charge of Sedhai Police Station containing all those allegations and whatever transpired from the order which this Court passed in connection with the said case, and therefore, the said Officer-In-charge of Sedhai Police Station shall register the same as an FIR if he finds that the said complaint that may be lodged by the petitioner prima facie discloses commission of offence under Chapter-XI of the Indian Penal Code and any other provision of the code, and accordingly, the petitioner lodged a formal FIR on 22.12.1994 against S.I. Santi Das for concealment of the petitioner's FIR on 27.8.94. Thereafter the police registered a case on 17.12.1994 in respect of the FIR 27.8.1994 lodged by the petitioner as against the 3rd respondent as per order and direction dated 16.12.1994 passed by this Court as stated above. The petitioner went on to state that though the 2nd respondent registered the petitioner's FIR vide Sedhai Police Station Case No. 171 of 1994, he did not at all undertake or conduct any investigation of the said case in its legal spirit and the 2nd respondent did not even record the statement of the eye witnesses, though some of the eye witnesses have been interrogated by him. Moreover, the 2nd respondent did not examine and record any statement of the driver of the vehicle which sustained bullet injury as a result of firing committed by the escort party of the 3rd respondent. The damaged and effected vehicle had never been inspected or seized by the police. In the meantime the 2nd respondent furnished final report purportedly for want of evidence on 10.4.1995 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who accepted the final report vide his order dated 28.4.1995. According to the petitioner, on 23.1.1995 and 27.1.1995 he received threatening telephonic calls pressing the petitioner not to proceed with the case against the Minister, for which the petitioner promptly reported the matter to the O/C Sedhai Police Station vide his complaint dated 24.1.1995 and the O/C West Agartala P.S. on 27.1.1995. The eye witnesses sworn affidavit narrating the incident what they have seen and what happened on that day of incident for which the petitioner annexed the copies of the affidavit of as many as six witnesses along with english renderings which are marked as Annexure- 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, 8G & 8H respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner went on to state that since the 3rd respondent, a Cabinet Minister is involved in the commission of a crime, the 2nd respondent the O/C of Sedhai Police Station being investigating Officer failed to investigate the case in its true spirit. The 2nd respondent deliberately did not record the statements of the eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. in connection with the said FIR case in which the 3rd respondent is involved. The petitioner further averred to the extent that where a politician like a minister is involved in the commission of crime, the State police would be reluctant to conduct free and fair investigation which happened in the percent case, and as such, for the faulty purported investigation done by the 2nd respondent, the offence committed would go un-redressed and the petitioner grievance touching the commission of criminal offence would go untried, unless an independant agency is directed to conduct the investigation. Unless an order for re-investigation to be conducted by any independant agency like CBI is ordered by this Court, the offence committed by the respondent No. 3 would go untried, the petitioner contended.

(3.) It is also the! case of the petitioner that when he applied for certified copy of the statements of the witnesses if recorded, during the investigation of the present case, the petitioner was informed in writing by the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Agartala that no statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. is available, and, as such, no copy could be supplied.