Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rameshwar Lal Choudhary vs State (Home Affairs Dep )Ors on 4 November, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14080/2011
Rameshwar Lal Chaudhary
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others
Date of Order: 4.11.2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Anand Sharma for the petitioner
This petition has been filed seeking writ, order or direction from this Court that an FIR, bearing No. 321/2011 registered at Police Station, Shipra Path. Mansarovar, Jaipur be transferred C.B.I which may be directed to investigate the matter thoroughly and in a fair and impartial manner.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition.
On 12.9.2011 an FIR No. 421/2011 came to be registered at Police Station, Shipra Path, Mansarovar pursuant to an order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur The allegations in the FIR pertains to the offences U/Ss.323, 342, 365, 384 and 120B IPC, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have been taken in the unlawful custody by the police personnel including Deputy Superintendent of Police at the instance of one Babu Lal Nagar, presently, the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies and Dairy Department, Government of Rajasthan.
The case of the petitioner is that he was let of after one night in unlawful police custody and was forced to sign documents, wherein he has allegedly recorded that he was taken to the police Station only for the purposes of interrogation.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200 to contend that neither gravity of the office alleged nor the progress on investigation thereof is material to the determination of the issue as to whether the investigation of a particular offence ought to be transferred from local police to the CBI. He submits that as the Police Officers involved in the present case belong to the Rajasthan Police Service and that the serious allegations having been made with regard to the wrongful deprivation of liberty for a day at the instance of the respondents, the matter ought to be directed to be investigated by the CBI as the petitioner does not have faith in the investigation which would otherwise be carried out by the local police.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, perused the writ petition and also taken into consideration the law propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra).
The petitioner's best case in terms of the allegations is that an officer amongst others belonging to the Rajasthan Police Service was involved in his wrongful abduction for one day. The petitioner submits that even though the FIR has been registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar, where accused police officers named in the FIR are not posted, yet he is apprehensive that really by virtue of the involvement of higher police officers, the investigating Officer at Shipra Path Police Station will not make a fair investigation. He submits that even otherwise, one of the accused Babu Lal Nagar is a Minister in the present Council of Ministers in the State of Rajasthan and by virtue of this fact also the police is likely to be partisan and not conduct a just and fair investigation.
I find no merit in the case set up by the petitioner. For one, the FIR has been registered at Police Station, Shipra Path Mansarovar where none of the accused bamed in the FIR are posted. In fact they belong to a Police Station which is situate at a distance of 40-45 Kms from Shipra Path Police Station. Further, it is an admitted fact that Babu Lal Nagar, Minister and the petitioner belong to the same Assembly constituency and apparently have an on going political rivalary. Further, the offences alleged against the respondents are not of serious nature apart from other issues going to the root of the petitioner's prayer.
Reliance also placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 is absolutely in apposite to the facts of this case and the issues of the aforesaid case which related to a case of false encounter in which there were gross allegations of misuse of police powers by the high police officers in the top echelons of the Gujrat Police.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that merely because certain police officers are involved, the matter should be transferred from local police to CBI is at complete odds with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal's case (supra), wherein in para 70, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
70. Before parting with the case, wedeem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although on inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on 12.9.2011 only about 45 days ago and there was no material on record that the Investigating Officer has been derelict in his duty or lethargic in carrying out investigation. In any event the petitioner has not approached higher police officers such as the Superintendent of Police of the District or the Deputy Inspector General, Inspector General of Police or the Director General of Police with any complaint with regard to the unfairness of the investigation. The police personnel of Shpira Path Police Station are not shown to have any nexus with any of the accused. The offence alleged and the surrounding circumstances are yet to be evaluated by the investigating agencies.
I find no substance in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the mere allegation against some police personnel is a ground to doubt the integrity and commitment to fairl investigate by the local police. Further, the Shipra Path Police Station is in no way subordinate to or in any manner under the influence of the accused in the impugned FIR and no such allegation has in fact been made based on material particulars in the writ petition.
Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed as such.
The stay application also stands dismissed.
(Alok Sharma ), J.
thanvi PS