Amit Kumar Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Saran and A.K. Roopanwal, JJ.—List has been revised.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for private-Respondent Sri N. I. Jafri are present.

Heard.

This petition has been filed challenging an order dated 25.4.2006, passed by the State Government transferring the investigation of the case in Case Crime No. 162 of 2005, under Sections 302/307, P.S. Hapur Dehat, district Ghaziabad, to the C.B.C.I.D.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that charge-sheet has already been submitted against the co-accused and cognizance was taken by the A.C.J.M., Hapur, Ghaziabad by order dated 23.12.2005. Therefore, there was no justification for transferring the case thereafter to the C.B.C.I.D.

By an order dated 8.7.2006, this Court had even stayed the investigation of the case by the C.B.C.I.D. Reliance has been also placed on the C.B.C.I.D. v. Rajesh Gandhi and Anr. 1997 SCC 88,for the proposition that an accused has no right to decide as to the agency which should be entrusted with the investigation of the case.

We are also conscious of the fact that very influential accused in order to avert their arrest try and succeed in getting their cases transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that no coercive measures have been taken for the apprehension of the accused even in this case.

In this view of the matter, we think ends of justice would be met if the impugned order aforesaid dated 25.4.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) transferring the case to the C.B.C.I.D. in the aforesaid crime is quashed, and we order accordingly.

The writ petition is allowed.

The civil police shall continue investigation and take further proceedings in the case against the absconding accused, in case no charge-sheet has been submitted against him so far.