Gauhati High Court
Anjuman Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 30 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010070772022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2596/2022
ANJUMAN KUMAR SHARMA
S/O- AMAR DEV SHARMA
R/O- HOUSE NO. C- 140, BEGUM VIHAR, BEGUMPUR, SULTANPURI, C-
BLOCK, NORTH WEST DELHI-110086
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
GUWAHATI
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
AMINGAON
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
6:THE ADDL. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KAMRUP (R)
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
BOKO POLICE STATION
KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
8:ASHIF AHMED(APS)
ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
30.11.2022 Heard Shri J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. E. Nath, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned State Counsel.
Considering the subject matter of this writ petition and the development which had taken place as recorded by this Court in the earlier order, the instant writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged an F.I.R. against certain persons who had fraudulently misappropriated a huge amount in the name of management of affairs of Brick Kiln of the petitioner. The said police case was registered as Boko P.S. Case No. 127/2022 under Sections 120 (B)/420/406/386/403/506 of the IPC. The petitioner had alleged that the case was not prosecuted in the right earnest and there were obstructions from certain Senior Officers which is wholly unwarranted in law. The said Senior Police Officer has also been made as a party respondent.
Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the present petition was filed to handover investigation to the CID or any other Agency so that a fair investigation can be done.
During the pendency of this case, a status report was produced before this Court from which it appear that the investigation was carried out and statements of different witnesses were recorded by the police and records were also requisitioned from the Bank of Baroda, Chhaygaon Branch. The records of the Secretary of the concerned Gaon Panchayat were also verified and investigation on the genuineness of documents was also undertaken.
Ms. S. Sharma, learned State Counsel submits that since the investigation is on the proper track, there is no requirement to handover the investigation to any other Agency and in any case, the petitioner would have all the remedies in law if aggrieved by any part of the investigation.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that since the investigation appears to be on the right track, there is no requirement to press this writ petition any further.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner that in case of any further grievance, he may approach the appropriate forum of law.
At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that for a particular accused, the anticipatory bail prayer has been rejected by this Court on 2 (two) occasions.
It is needless to state that if the custodial interrogation of any accused is necessary, the police shall make all endeavours for the same in accordance with law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant