Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harshita Garg D/O Shri Nirmal Kumar Garg ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 March, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ No. 898/2018
Harshita Garg D/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Garg B/c Agarwal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Makan No. D-93, Ladli Path, Chomu House,
C Scheme, Thana Vidhyakpuri Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Secretariat
Rajasthan Government, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur
4. D.C.P. (East) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
5. S.H.O., Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
6. Ratan Singh, the then SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
at present posted as SHO, Police Station Vishvakarma, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
Investigating Officer : Mr. Govind Detha, Addl. S.P., CID-CB,
Jaipur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
12/03/2019
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that F.I.R. No.350/2016 be quashed, the matter be referred to CBI for further investigation, action be taken against the erring Police Officers. Compensation has also been claimed from the State.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was picked up from her residence at 6:00 am in the morning. As per the F.I.R., information was received that contraband is being brought to Jaipur in a vehicle bearing Punjab (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM) (2 of 6) [CRLW-898/2018] registration number. On the basis of the report, a team was constituted and the vehicle was intercepted in front of Pink Square Mall, Jaipur. As per the F.I.R., petitioner and her fiance were in the vehicle alongwith the driver. Contraband was seized from them and they were arrested. It is contended that petitioner had earlier preferred S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.517/2016, wherein the High Court partially allowed the writ petition vide order dated 18.08.2017 and directed the Authorities to withdraw the investigation from Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur and to entrust the same to a Senior Officer of CID-CB Branch of the State Police. Further, Head of the CID-CB Branch was directed to personally monitor and supervise the investigation.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has shown to the Court the CCTV Footage of the house of petitioner, wherein the petitioner is seen leaving her house with her dog at around 5:55 am. Around 6:00 am, she is seen entering her house with a lady. The lady, as per the Investigating Officer, is a Police Lady Constable, Sonam. The other CCTV Footage shows the petitioner approaching her house followed by Lady Constable-Sonam and two Police Personnel, Rajesh-ASI & Ramnath-Constable. As per the CCTV Footage, the petitioner leaves the house with the Police Team.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's presence is shown in the Vehicle No.PB01A9228 in the morning at 7:50 am. Police has made up a case against the petitioner who was picked up from her own house. It is contended that the matter was referred to CID-CB by the Court, as the Police Officials were involved. It is contended that the investigation is pending with the Investigation Officer since September, 2017. The (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM) (3 of 6) [CRLW-898/2018] matter was earlier investigated by Jaya Singh. Investigation was, thereafter, entrusted to the Present Officer in March, 2018.
5. It is argued that the Investigating Officer is trying to shield the Police Officers.
6. It is contended that when there is specific allegation that the Police Personnel are involved, the Court may direct the investigation to be handed over to the CBI. Reliance in this regard has been placed on "Rubabuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors." 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 202. Reliance has also been placed on "Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors." AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1322, wherein there were allegations against Police Personnel, the Court in the interest of justice directed the matter to be investigated by an independent agency like CBI.
7. Reliance has also been placed on "Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia vs. State of Rajasthan" S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.32/2018 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4383/2014, wherein looking to the allegations against the Police, the investigation was transferred to CBI. Reliance has also been placed on "State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors." AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1476(1), wherein the Apex Court has held that the directions to CBI to investigate a case can be given by a Writ Court even in absence of consent of State. However, such power can be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in extraordinary situations.
8. This Court directed the Investigating Officer to remain personally present in the Court. In pursuance of the direction, Investigating Officer- Govind Detha, Addl. S.P., CID-CB, Jaipur is (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM) (4 of 6) [CRLW-898/2018] present in person in the Court. Investigating Officer has produced the factual report in a sealed cover. The report is taken on record.
9. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that CID-CB has already come to the conclusion from the surveillance report that the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking. It is contended that statement of many witnesses have been recorded who have deposed that the petitioner used to supply contraband to the students. As per the Investigating Officer, the recording of transcript of mobile which was kept under surveillance, points out towards guilt of the petitioner.
10. Investigating Officer has contended that he has already concluded the investigation and the delay occurred, as petitioner was pregnant and investigation could not be done with her. It is contended that the petitioner and her fiance were involved in drug trafficking and their telephone numbers were kept under surveillance. From the surveillance, it was revealed that a vehicle bearing Punjab Registration number was coming from Delhi which would be delivering the contraband to the petitioner and her fiance. It is contended that the transcript has been prepared which goes to show that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking. Investigating Officer was unable to explain, as to how the petitioner, who was at her residence at 6:00 am in the morning, happened to board the vehicle bearing registration number of Punjab coming from Delhi at the time of interception by the police.
11. It is contended by the Investigating Officer that he has done investigation in light of the directions given by the High Court and has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM)
(5 of 6) [CRLW-898/2018]
12. With regard to the CCTV Footage taken from the bank which is on opposite side of the house of the petitioner, it is informed by the Investigating Officer that the footage was blurred and it was not established that the petitioner was taken by the Police Team.
13. I have considered the contentions.
14. The Investigating Officer was entrusted the case by the Court and he was required to investigate the truthfulness of the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer has proceeded on the basis of the mobile surveillance report and has not paid much emphasis on the fact of petitioner being in the company of Police Personnel at her house at 6:00 am and her being taken away by the police in 'Creta' from front of the bank.
15. It is possible that the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking as revealed from the surveillance report but still it is duty of the Investigating Officer to ascertain whether a false F.I.R. has been lodged. The team instead of taking the petitioner from her house, could have waited for her to approach the vehicle and accept the contraband. The contraband is shown to be in her presence and her presence is shown in the vehicle bearing registration number of Punjab which was coming from Delhi, wherein, as per the CCTV Footage, she was at Jaipur at 6:00 am.
16. This Court is not inclined to comment on the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The Court is only concerned about the fact that after the petitioner was picked up from her house, she was shown in possession of the contraband on the same day, after two hours. The involvement of Police Personnel who are identified and one of whose name also appears in the F.I.R. points out towards the involvement of the Police (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM) (6 of 6) [CRLW-898/2018] Personnel. The investigating Officer has not cared to investigate as to why the petitioner was rounded up from her house and then shown to be in possession of contraband infront of Pink Square Mall, Jaipur. The investigation done by CID-CB is thus not inspiring confidence hence, to do complete justice, this Court deems it proper to refer the matter to CBI.
17. This Court is aware of the fact that a case is to be referred to CBI only in exceptional cases. Present is a case where a girl has been picked up from her residence at 6:00 am. As per the CCTV Footage, she was rounded up and taken by the police. Police Personnel have also admitted being at her residence. It appears that the Investigating Officer is trying to shield the Police Officers, hence the Writ Petition deserves to be partly allowed.
18. CID-CB is directed to hand over the record of the case to the CBI Authorities within one week from the date of this order and, thereafter, the CBI Authorities shall take up the investigation and complete the same within six months, after handing over of the case from the CID-CB Authorities. CBI Authorities shall investigate all the aspects of the case. State Authorities would co- operate with the CBI Officers in conducting the investigation.
19. Accordingly, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Stay application stands disposed of.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.
Arti/38 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:44:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)