Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh Chandra Kaushik vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 September, 2012
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.821 of 2012 (Criminal)
Rakesh Chandra Kaushik
...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
.........Respondents
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Shah, AGA, for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State, it appears that the first information report was lodged by petitioner against accused/ respondent nos.3 to 5. These accused were dealing in share trading whereas petitioner was a wholesaler/retailer in a computer business. At one point of time, all the accused approached the petitioner, alluring him to invest money in the share market. Petitioner acceded to their persuasion and invested almost Rs.37 lakh. However, he did not get return as per his investment, and later on felt that he has been cheated by the accused/respondents, so he lodged the FIR against them on 30.7.2012, wherein the time of incident is shown in between 6th July, 2010 to 28th June, 2012.
Mr. Narendra Singh, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun, to whom the investigation was entrusted, has submitted a final report in the matter on 10.9.2012 whereas the instant petition was filed and the order was made by this Court on 7.9.2012 directing the I.O. to inform about the stage of pendency of investigation. It can be noted that the 2 Investigating Officer might have come to know about the said order either on 8th or on 9th of September, 2012 and on 10.9.2012, he submitted a final report in the matter.
Learned counsel has prayed that this report submitted by police is quite vague and the same is without assigning any speaking reason. Even in the affidavit sworn on 14.9.2012, the I.O. in paragraph no.8 has admitted that he collected the material evidence but on the basis of the same, no prima facie evidence was found of any fraud. Thus, it has been prayed to direct the appropriate agency viz. Special Task Force for doing further investigation in light of the facts of the FIR, supported by the affidavit of petitioner, which he handed over to the I.O.
The Court feels that once the I.O. has found that no sufficient evidence is available, notwithstanding the finding of the Sub Inspector is vague, a right has been created in favour of the prospective accused persons. Thus, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to hear the respondent nos.3 to 5, to whom the notices have so far not been served.
As such, issue fresh notices to respondent nos.3 to 5 calling their counter affidavit within two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take steps within two days.
List immediately after the service report.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 24.09.2012 Rdang