Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Vijay Kumar Shukla
WA No.290/2021
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA
PRADESH AT JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.A. No. 290/2021
RAJ KUMAR SHUKLA .......APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Bramhadatt Singh, Government Advocate for the
Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved/Heard through VC on: 28.06.2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 1st day of July, 2021) Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice:
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by appellant-writ petitioner - Raj Kumar Shukla challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2556/2020 (Raj Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby his writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The appellant-writ petitioner in the writ petition had prayed for a direction commanding the respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh, Secretary, Home Department and respondent No.2 - WA No.290/2021 [2] Inspector General of Police, Division Shahdol to transfer the investigation of criminal case registered against him by the Secretary Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further direct the respondent No.6 - Superintendent of Police, CBI, District Jabalpur to conduct fair investigation.
3. According to the case set up by the appellant-writ petitioner, he is a social worker affiliated to Congress Party. He was also MLA representative of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal, the then Member of Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.86, Kotma, District Anooppur for the term from 2013 to 2018. However, in the new elections that took place in the General Elections of 2018, respondent No.5 - Sunil Saraf was elected as the new Member of Legislative Assembly, Constituency No.86, Kotma. It was contended that the respondent No.5 was instrumental in getting false complaints made against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had to approach this Court to seek protection. The respondent No.5 is exercising pressure on the investigation agency in order to falsely implicate the petitioner. On one of his false complaint, the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol forwarded the matter to the Collector to order the investigation pertaining to the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The respondent No.5 made another complaint to the Collector, Shahdol, who forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Anooppur for necessary action. It is further submitted that the President, Janpad Panchayat along with number of Congress Party workers met the Minister In-charge of the District and WA No.290/2021 [3] submitted a memorandum on 19.01.2020 (Annexure P-5). Reference is made to a news-item published in newspaper, namely, Swatantra Mat, Anooppur (Annexure P-4) to the effect that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha had a false criminal case lodged against the petitioner. Reference is also made to a news-item published in a newspaper (Annexure P-6) on 19.01.2020 showing that the Congress workers had submitted a memorandum to the Hon'ble Chief Minister through the Minister In-charge against the respondent No.5. It was alleged that the respondent No.5 was mentally harassing the workers of the Congress Party and was demanding illegal gratification.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner argued that the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha had made a totally false complaint against the writ-petitioner. Even the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha had written a letter dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-10) to the Superintendent of Police, District Anooppur that the complaint made by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha against the petitioner was false. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Anooppur that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha was acting at the behest of respondent No.5 - Sunil Saraf and has lodged a false and concocted complaint against the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was not even present at the scene of occurrence and he was actually, at that moment, present at the Police Station Kotma, which can be verified from the CCTV footage of Kotma Police Station of that day, which is also available. WA No.290/2021 [4]
5. Complaint against the petitioner by Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha, Smt. Laxmi Singh is that on 19.01.2020 at about 4.15 p.m., the petitioner along with one companion had entered her office and torn the official papers and hurled abuses at her with the name of caste thereby committing offence of obstructing a public servant from discharging duties and also committed offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel submitted that this was a false case. In order, therefore, to save the petitioner from harassment, learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to entrust the investigation of the case to the CBI. Learned counsel by citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and others (2016) 4 SCC 160, argued that the constitutional courts can direct the investigation of the case to the CBI even after commencement of the trial and examination of the witnesses. This cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the constitutional power for instilling the faith of the victim and public at large in the investigating agency.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposed the writ appeal and citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409, argued that the Supreme Court in that case held that the constitutional courts cannot entrust the investigation of every case to the CBI as a matter of routine merely because the party makes some allegation. While the aggrieved party has a right to claim fair and proper investigation but WA No.290/2021 [5] has no right to claim investigation by a particular agency like CBI. It was held that Section 156(3) CrPC gives wide powers to the Magistrate for ensuring proper investigation. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2019) 6 SCC 777.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court does not find any justification let alone any extraordinary reason for directing to transfer the investigation of the criminal case in question to the CBI. Only because the petitioner at one point of time had happened to be a representative of a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Kotma Constituency and also only because in his perception the false criminal case against him was lodged by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jamuniha at the behest of the sitting MLA due to political rivalry, is no ground to transfer the investigation to the CBI. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence by way of CCTV footage that he was at the Police Station Kotma at the time of the alleged incident, it would be for him to invite the attention of the Investigating Officer towards this aspect. Owing to this reason, however, direction to transfer the investigation to CBI, in the facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be wholly uncalled for.
8. Still further, as held by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra), if in the perception of the writ petitioner the investigation is not fair and proper, Section 156(3) CrPC provides a check by the WA No.290/2021 [6] Magistrate on the police performing its duty under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly and can monitor the same. It was held that the High Court should exercise utmost caution and care while directing to transfer investigation to the CBI and that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC where alternative remedy available under Section 154(3) read with Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200, CrPC has not been exercised. The Supreme Court further held that the power given to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate, which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done or is not being done by the police.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the approach taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
S/
Digitally signed by SACHIN CHAUDHARY
Date: 2021.07.01 15:21:10 +05'30'