Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr. O.P. Yadav Advocate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2016
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
WP-17302-2016
(MR. O.P. YADAV ADVOCATE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-11-2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
W.P. No.17302/2016 (PIL)
Mr. O. P. Yadav, Advocate
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
Present: Honâble Shri Rajendra Menon,
The Acting Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Mrs. Anjuli Palo, J.
______________________________________________________________
Shri Vasant Daniel with Shri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General along with Shri P. K.
Kourav, Additional Advocate General and Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Govt.
Advocate, for the State Government and respondent No.4 and 5.
Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A. J. Pawar, for the
intervernor in I.A. No.14351/2016, who claims to be a affected person or
the complainant.
_________________________________________________________
ORDER
(3/11/2016) Shri O. P. Yadav, an Advocate claiming himself to be the President of Democratic Lawyers' Forum, an unregistered organization and a group of lawyers has filed this writ petition pro bono publicano and the prayer made in the writ petition reads as under :-
"11.(i) that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hand over the entire investigation to CBI to ensure free and fair investigation in FIR No.201/2016 lodged at Police Station Baihar under Section 153 (a), 295
(a) IPC, FIR No.202/2016 lodged at Police Station Baihar under Section 392, 307, 452, 323, 506, 147, 294 IPC, FIR No.203/2016 lodged at Police Station Baihar under Section 294, 323, 506, 452, 147 IPC and FIR No.204/2016 lodged at Police Station Baihar under Section 294, 341, 353, 332, 147, 427 IPC.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to monitor the investigation of CBI in the above mentioned FIR's to ensure free, just and fair probe without any political pressure."
Emphasis Supplied.
2. It is stated in the writ petition that certain incident took place in District Balaghat under Police Station Baihar and a written complaint was filed at 7.30 p.m. on 25.9.2016 against a person named, Suresh Yadav, the intervenor herein who has filed I.A. No.14351/2016, it was alleged that Shri Suresh Yadav is communalizing the locality by spreading hatred messages against a particular community/ religion during the Navratri and Dusshera festival. It is said that said person, namely Suresh Yadav belongs to a particular organization having affiliation to the present Government in the State of M.P. It is said that on receiving the complaint, the Inspector of the Police Station, intimated about the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District Balaghat and the Inspector is said to have been directed to look into the matter. Various averments are made and it is stated that the said person, namely the intervenor was brought to the Police Station, Balaghat at 8.40 p.m. on 25.9.2016 and the alleged incident is said to have taken place after which the FIR was registered against Suresh Yadav under Section 153(a) read with Section 295(a) of Indian Penal Code, it is said in the allegations made that Suresh Yadav has been assaulted by the police persons, he was admitted to hospital in Jabalpur and Balaghat and on the basis of these false allegations, FIRs have been lodged against the police persons based on a politically concocted story. Apart from narrating the incident in detail and referring to certain political statement made to the media by political persons, the ground canvassed in the writ petition is that the police personnel in the entire have been harassed and victimized complaints have been filed against the police personnel due to which the moral of the police force is being adversely affected in the circumstances a situation created on extraneous political consideration, a free and impartial enquiry is not possible and therefore, the prayer.
3. Respondents have filed a detailed reply and apart from challenging the locus standi of the petitioner in filing the writ petition, the State Government has brought on record the fact with regard to a Special Investigating Team being constituted headed by DIG, Chhatarpur and investigation into the matter being carried out by the Special Investigating Team in a impartial manner.
4. The intervenor has also filed a detailed objection and submits that he was assaulted by the police persons on 25.9.2016, dragged to the Police Station Baihar, the police personnels misused their authority, he was assaulted, sustained serious injuries and looking to the offence committed by the police officials against him, case has been registered against them, the matter is under investigation and at this stage no interference be made.
5. Be it as it may be, in the backdrop of the facts that have come on record, this Court is required to consider the prayer made for handing over the investigation to an independent agency i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation. Shri Vasant Daniel took us through the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of R. S. Sodhi, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. - 1994 AIR Page 38 to say that in such a case investigation by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation can be ordered. That apart, Shri Vasant Daniel and Shri R. K. Gupta took strong objection to the objection filed by the State Government in the matter of locus standi of the petitioner, particularly, with regard to objection and return filed by way of counter affidavit in another Writ Petition No.13224/2015 - Democratic Lawyers Forum (Group of Advocates) Vs. Union of India. He argued that by suppression of facts and by not reflecting the correct position, the State Government has raised frivolous preliminary objection with regard to locus standi of the petitioner. They produced before us complete order sheet of W.P. No.13224/2015 to say that objection with regard to locus standi are unsustainable and serious allegations are made with regard to this objection.
6. Learned Advocate General submits that he would not pursue the preliminary objections raised with regard to locus standi, at this stage, but by referring to averment made in the writ petition and the following judgments of the Supreme Court :- Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others - (2016)4 SCC 160; Sujatha Ravi Kiral @ Sujatasahu Vs. State of Kerala and others - (2016)7 SCC 597; Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Others - (2016)3 SCC 135 & State of West Bengal & others Vs. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others - (2010)3 SCC 571 and a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Awadhesh Prasad Shukla Vs. State of M.P. & Others - ILR [2014] MP 2884, the principles laid down thereto, argues that based on these legal principles, the ingredients and grounds necessary for investigation and inquiry of a matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation is not made out. He took us through the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Committee for protection of Democratic Rights (supra), particularly, the conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 68 thereof and argues that it not a fit case where a direction to conduct inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation should be ordered.
7. Learned Advocate General argued that except for making vague allegations, loaded with statements like political interference, harassment, moral of police force and impartial inquiry etc., no cogent prima facie evidence or material is available to show as to how and in what manner the inquiry conducted by Special Task Investigation is insufficient or lacking in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Refuting the aforesaid Shri Vasant Daniel argued that in the light of the scenario created in the District of Balaghat and the manner in which the police officials are being prosecuted by influential political group having close affiliation to the Government. It is a fit case where the investigation should be handed over to the independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation.
9. We have heard and considered the rival contentions as were canvassed before us and have gone through the averments made in the writ petition. Even though during the course of hearing serious objections were raised by Shri Vasant Daniel and Shri R. K. Gupta with regard to attitude of the State Government in raising the preliminary objection, once learned Advocate General during the course of hearing did not press the preliminary objection, we are not required to go into this aspect of the matter.
10. The principle for referring and handing over investigation of a criminal case to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation has been considered time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases as are detailed herein above, particularly in the case of Committee for protection of Democratic Rights (supra) and all these principles were recently considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Pal (supra). In the aforesaid case after considering all the judgments on the question from para 50 onwards, the law has been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction a Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of issuing directions to CBI to conduct investigation must exercise jurisdiction with great caution, as has been underlined in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard but it is emphasized that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled some allegations against the local police or any person of authority. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the power can be exercised in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence into the investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or it is required for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. In the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), the principles have been laid down from para 60 onwards. It is held that the power, extraordinary in nature, available under Article 226 of the Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations. It is also observed that if such a power is exercised in each and every case, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with it limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases . If the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court is scrutinized in the backdrop of the material available on record in the present case, we find that except for submitting and contending in the writ petition that certain police persons are being prosecuted at the instance of politically powerful persons, no cogent evidence or material is adduced as to why the investigation now undertaken by the Special Task Force is not proper, how and in what manner there is interference into the investigation by the STF and no exonerating circumstances are pointed out except for vague allegations are made out to say that moral of the police force in the State of M.P. would be adversely effected, if the investigation is not transferred. Having bestowed our consideration to the facts available on record, we find that the ingredients necessary for transfer of an investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments to do so are not fulfilled or available in the present case and therefore, there being no exonerating circumstances or extraordinary situation warranting transfer of investigation, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.
10. Petition is therefore, dismissed, no order on cost.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT. ANJULI PALO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE mrs. mishra