AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyen Vaidya, J
On 9.12.2023 four young students from Haryana namely Vaibhav Yadav, Kushagra, Shashank Sharma and Ritika Mittal had visited a place named ‘Tosh’ in District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. One of them i.e. Vaibhav Yadav died in the evening.
The police on receipt of information about the incident had reached the spot, but did not find any foul play. On 11.12.2023, the body of Vaibhav Yadav was handed over to his relatives after postmortem.
On 14.02.2024, Sh. Baldev Yadav (letter petitioner herein) father of deceased Vaibhav Yadav submitted a written request to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh with a copy to SHO, Police Station, Kullu suspecting foul play in the death of his son mainly for the following reasons:
(i) Uncooperative attitude of the Police officials with the relatives of deceased on 10.12.2023. Allegedly, despite request by the uncle of deceased, the three companions of deceased and hotel staff was not questioned in his presence.
(ii) Questions were raised over the conduct of one trainee IPS officer named Vinay Yadav. He had allegedly used his influence on the local police.
(iii) Post incident conduct of Kushagra, Shashank and Ritika.
(iv) A question was also raised about deceased being alone in the room on the pretext of ill health, whereas the father of Kushagra had allegedly disclosed to the complainant during telephonic conversation that Kushagra, Shashank and Ritika were also unwell and were vomiting.
In response to the complaint of Shri Baldev Yadav, on 6.3.2024 the Superintendent of Police, Kullu entrusted a fact-finding enquiry to the Additional Superintendent of Police (for short, ‘the ASP’) Kullu Mr. Sanjeev Chauhan.
Further, being dis-satisfied with the conduct of police, Sh. Baldev Yadav submitted a letter petition to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court dated 10.07.2024. In this backdrop the instant criminal writ petition came to be registered.
In the first instance, respondents 1 and 2 filed their reply dated 17.8.2024. They came up with a version that all the four friends i.e. Vaibhav Yadav, Kushagra, Shashank Sharma and Ritika Mittal had hired two rooms on 4th floor of a hotel named ‘Suraj Guest House’ at village Tosh. All of them had left the guest house at about 7.00 p.m. and visited German Bakery where they had a cake. Thereafter they went to an eatery named ‘Shalom Café’ for dinner.
Since, Vaibhav Yadav was not feeling well, Shashank Sharma accompanied him to the Guest House, but at the Guest House the condition of Vaibhav Yadav had started to deteriorate. Shashank Sharma left for Shalom Cafe to apprise his friends about bad health condition of Vaibhav Yadav. On hearing this, Kushagra Yadav immediately returned to the Guest House, but did not find Vaibhav Yadav in the room. He looked down from the balcony and found that Vaibhav Yadav was lying in the field. He rushed towards Vaibhav Yadav and found him injured.
6.1 It was also submitted that one person named Chander Singh, who allegedly was working as a Manager in Hotel Yamuna, had seen a person falling from fourth floor of Suraj Guest House at about 7.30 PM and had informed the owner of Suraj Guest House about the incident.
6.2 Reply by respondents 1 and 2 also mentioned that Investigating Officer had inspected the spot, photographs of the spot were clicked and statements of witnesses were recorded.
6.3 Bleeding injuries from the nose and mouth of deceased were found besides injury on his forehead.
6.4 Forms Nos 25.35 and 25.39 were filled and the dead body of the deceased was brought to Regional Hospital Kullu for postmortem from where the case was further referred to Government Medical College, Nerchowk, Mandi.
6.5 On 10.12.2023 inquiries were conducted from Kushagra Yadav, Shashank Sharma and Ritika Mittal and their medical examinations were got conducted and blood samples were preserved and sent for analysis.
6.6 Postmortem on the body of deceased Vaibhav was conducted on 11.12.2023 at GMC Nerchowk.
6.7 As per result received from RFSL, Mandi:
(a) Cannabinoids were detected in the blood of deceased;
(b) No poison/ethyl alcohol was detected.
6.8 The cause of death was opined as:
“The deceased died due to gross subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to the blunt trauma sustained to head region. The injuries suffered on the body were consistent with the fall from height. Cannabinoids were detected in the chemical examination of samples preserved as per reports received from RFSL Mandi.”
According to Police, no cognizable offence was found to have been made out on the basis of evidence, statements of witnesses, facts and circumstances of the case. In result, proceedings under section 174 CrPC were stated to have been drawn and filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kullu.
In this manner explanation rendered by respondents 1 and 2 was that they had enquired the matter in fair and transparent manner but nothing substantive had surfaced from the facts thus far.
Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed compliance affidavit dated 6.11.2024 during the proceedings of instant case. Noticeably this affidavit was sworn by none other than ASP Sanjeev Chauhan (Enquiry Officer), who purportedly was acting as SP Kullu at relevant time. It was disclosed that Mr. Vinay Yadav IPS was again associated on 17.9.2024 and 18.9.2024 and another statement was recorded. As per said affidavit, from the call records of mobile phone of Mr. Vinay Yadav it was discovered that he had made calls to police officials at Kullu besides having conversations with Kushagra, Shashank and Ritika. The data from said mobile phone was also stated to have been extracted by RFSL, Dharamshala and from such material also no foul play was detected.
At this stage it will be relevant to notice the stand taken by official respondents with respect to enquiry proceedings by the ASP in their initial reply filed in the Court as under:
10.1 The ASP had received mobile phone of deceased through courier, which had been sent to FSL, Dharmshala but the report was awaited.
10.2 The allegation with respect to influence of Vinay Yadav IPS over the proceedings was denied. Investigating officer was quoted to have neither known nor met Mr. Vinay Yadav.
10.3 After enquiry was started by ASP, he had directed Mr. Vinay Yadav to join the enquiry. His statement was recorded to the effect that he had contacted local police at Kullu to know about the health conditions of Kushagra and his friends, who statedly were not able to get medical help in a remote area. According to Mr. Vinay Yadav, Kushagra was son of uncle of his wife (wife’s cousin) and he had undertaken such exercise after having been contacted by father of Kushagra, Mr. Naresh Yadav. At late night on 9.12.2023, according to Mr. Vinay Yadav, he was informed by Mr. Naresh Yadav that one of the friends of Kushagra had fallen down and died. Thereafter at the instance of Mr. Naresh Yadav he had visited Kullu Police Station on 10.1.2023 where Kushagra and his friends were being enquired and their statements were being recorded.
10.4 Reply also quoted Mr. Vinay Yadav having disclosed that on 10.1.2023 relatives of Vaibhav Yadav were arguing with local Police regarding postmortem. Further, they had also enquired about his whereabouts and after having come to know that he was a trainee IPS officer, objection was raised that he could influence the investigation.
Lastly, a status report dated 18.11.2024 under the signatures of ASP Sanjeev Chauhan has been filed detailing the factual aspects of the matter with the help of supporting documents annexed therewith.
The respondents 1 and 2 have, thus, suggested the following facts:
12.1 On 09.12.2023 at 7.39 p.m. a daily diary report (DDR) regarding suicide by a tourist at Village Tosh was generated on the Emergency Response Support System (ERSS) Portal of the District Police Control Room (DPCR) Kullu and the same was conveyed telephonically to Police Post, Manikaran.
12.2 Police Post Manikaran reported the matter to Police Station Kullu at about 9.00 p.m. on the same day.
12.3 In the meanwhile, since there was no Investigating Officer available at Police Post Manikaran, instructions were sought from SHO, Police Station, Kullu, who had instructed HC Diwan Chand an Investigating Officer from Police Post, Jari to visit the spot alongwith other police officials from Police Post, Manikaran.
12.4 SI Arjun Singh of Police Station, Kullu was also deputed to visit the spot.
12.5 SI Arjun Singh, HC Diwan Chand and few other police officials reached the spot during the night.
12.6 In the first instance, they collected the version of Shashank Sharma, Kushagra Yadav and Ritika Mittal besides Bodh Raj owner of Suraj Guest House and one Chander Singh, Manager of Hotel Yamuna in the same village.
12.7 The police came across the information about all four friends having left Suraj Guest House for meals etc.; the deceased having taken ill ; Shashank Sharma and Vaibhav Yadav having returned to Suraj Guest House and thereafter Shashank Sharma having left the Guest House to inform his other friends regarding deteriorating health condition of Vaibhav Yadav; Kushagra Yadav having returned to the Guest House immediately and having noticed Vaibhav Yadav lying in the field after not finding him in the room.
12.8 As per Chander Singh, Hotel Yamuna was facing Suraj Guest House at some distance and about 7.30 p.m. he had noticed someone falling from the balcony of 4th floor of Suraj Guest House into the fields.
12.9 Chander Singh had informed an employee of Suraj Guest House, who further had informed Bodh Raj, owner of Suraj Guest House.
Having suspected no foul play, police after initial proceeding on the spot had brought the dead body to District Hospital, Kullu for postmortem from where it was referred to Government Medical College, Nerchowk.
13.1 The postmortem was conducted on 11.12.2023.
According to official respondents, no foul play was discovered.
We, after going through and considering the entire material placed before us, are constrained to observe as under:
15.1 The police record reveals that DDR No. 19 was recorded at 7.40 p.m. by HC Krishan Kant No.47 at Police Post, Manikaran. It recorded the factum of information having been received from Police Control Room that some tourist had jumped from a hotel, who was lying dead.
15.2 Not only this, what was additionally recorded in the said DDR is that the scribe of said report (H.C Krishan Kant No. 47) had already informed the SHO, Police Station, Kullu and in return had received the instructions that an Investigating Officer from Police Post, Jari was being deputed and accordingly, two officials from Police Post, Manikaran had been deputed to assist the Investigating Officer from Police Post, Jari.
15.3 It means that the information received at Police Post, Manikaran from Police Control Room was not recorded immediately and before that the police official had taken recourse to receive instructions from the SHO, Police Station, Kullu.
15.4 Interestingly, at about 7.37 p.m. on 09.12.2023, DDR No. 27 had already been recorded at Police Post, Jari wherein a reference was made to information received from HC Rajesh Kumar, MHC Police Station, Kullu that some incident had taken place in the area of ‘Tosh’ and an Investigating Officer was required to be deputed.
15.5 It was also recorded that as per the information another Investigating Officer was being deputed from Police Station, Kullu.
15.6 Thus, the police had already received the information about the incident prior to the time as recorded in DDR No.19 of Police Post, Manikaran.
15.7 SI Arjun Singh had, according to police records, left the Police Station Kullu after 9.00 p.m. when the information was received from Police Post, Manikaran. During the proceedings of instant case, it was disclosed by SI Arjun Singh in the open court that at about 8.00 p.m. on 09.12.2023 he had received a telephonic call from SHO, Police Station, Kullu about the incident and as he was not in the Police Station, he returned to the Police Station but was unable to leave for want of conveyance. He waited for the official vehicle to return and thereafter left the Police Station at about 8.45 p.m.
Thus, clearly the SHO Police Station, Kullu had received the information before 7.40 PM on 9.12.2023 about the death of a tourist after jumping from a hotel and he had issued instructions at PS Kullu for deputing investigation officers from the Police Station as also from PP Jari. The DDR No. 27 dated 9.12.2023 of PP Jari and the version given by SI Arjun Singh establishes above facts.
Strangely, no contemporaneous record from Police Station Kullu has been produced. Rather, what has been recorded is that information regarding the incident was received in the PS Kullu at 9 PM for the first time. This suggests that picture now sought to be presented by the Police is shorn of truth.
It has also been revealed that a team lead by HC Diwan Chand reached the spot first and the other team lead by SI Arjun Singh arrived later.
Tosh is more that 60 Kms from Kullu and keeping the topography, road conditions and late-night hours in view, the police party from Kullu, which according to SI Arjun Singh had left at about 8.45 PM, would have reached the spot after two hours approximately i.e. around 10.45 PM. Similarly, HC Diwan Chand had left PP Jari at about 7.30 PM and he also must not have reached Tosh before 9.45 PM.
The death of Vaibhav Yadav had already taken place before 7.30 PM and more than two hours had already elapsed when police reached the spot.
Even after the receipt of information of death of some person due to fall/jump, the police had chosen not to register FIR.
The police had recorded the statements of Shashank Sharma, Kushagra Yadav and Ritika Mittal besides Chander Singh and Bodh Raj on the spot. When SI Arjun Singh was asked as to under what provision those statements were recorded, he disclosed that he was conducting the inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The copies of such statements placed on record reveal that those were bearing the date 09.12.2023 without any time. In addition to above statements of two more persons namely Chander Singh and Bodh Raj were allegedly recorded on spot but again the time of such recording has not been mentioned. Subscription of date 9.12.2023 on all these statements suggest that these were recorded before 12 AM during the intervening night of 9th and 10th December 2023.
As per DDR No. 5 dated 10.12.2023, HC Diwan Chand had arrived back at Police Post Jari before 6.15.AM.
Form 25.35 bears the date 9.12.2023, which means that the form was filled before 12 AM, but it shows the presence of relative of deceased which is highly improbable.
Thus, the Police appears to have arrived at a hasty conclusion that there was no foul play.
Evidently, they relied only on the version provided by the three companions of the deceased. No effort appears to have been made to ascertain the veracity of their version. No site plan was prepared. No independent effort was made to ascertain as to whether deceased had committed suicide or had an accidental fall or was pushed by someone and lastly, if it was a case of suicide as per information available with police, whether there was any angle of abetment.
The above sequence of events is sufficient to infer callous and unprofessional conduct of law enforcing agency. As per the facts disclosed by police the information given to it was in respect of some person having jumped from 4th floor of a hotel. That means it was an information of commission of suicide and closely associated was the ruling out of any abetment to such suicide. Abetment to suicide was a cognizable offence under section 306 IPC (as it then was). In such circumstances non-registration of FIR is completely unexplainable. The registration of FIR would have definitely provided the police with teeth to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Another fact that draws attention is that vide detailed DDR 28 dated 10.12.2023 recorded at PS Kullu SI Arjun Singh recorded that Chander Singh (Manager of Hotel Yamuna) had given information to Bodh Raj (Owner of Suraj Guest House)
28.1 Same fact was recorded in the application for post mortem submitted by SI Arjun Singh.
28.2 Subsequently the version was changed that Chander Singh had informed some employee of Bodh Raj.
28.3 No employee of Bodh Raj was examined on 9th and 10th December 2023.
What can be more agonizing that the police till recently was not aware as to who had reported the matter at Police Control Room on 09.12.2023.
29.1 Now, the police version is that the telephonic information was given by Shashank Sharma from the mobile phone of Ritika Mittal. The voice content of the mobile phone call made by Shashank Sharma to Police Control Room is also claimed to have been retrieved by the respondents.
29.2 In fact, an audio clip was played in the Court purporting to be the content of mobile call made by Shashank Sharma to Police Control Room. We noticed that the person making the call had reported that some person had committed suicide. He was not aware about the exact place and location of the incident and evidently, someone was prompting from behind to say that the place was ‘Tosh’.
29.3 This clearly raise a question about the manner in which the police had proceeded. It was the first thing for police to have ascertained the credentials of complainant.
It is strange that the police believed the version of friends of deceased and that of Bodh Raj and Chander Singh as gospel truth, more particularly when the initial available information was of commission of suicide. No effort has ever been made to ascertain the cause of suicide, if any, committed by Vaibhav Yadav. As noticed earlier, all other possibilities stood ruled out by the police without resorting to any kind of probe.
What remains unexplained is as under:
31.1 Why the information was shown to have been received at Police Station Kullu at about 9 PM, on 9.12.2023 when the SHO was in receipt of said information much earlier?
31.2 Why the contemporaneous record of information received by SHO was not maintained ?
31.3 Why DDR 19 dated 9.12.2023 was not recorded promptly and why prior consultations were made with SHO?
31.4 Why SI Arjun Singh did not record any DDR immediately after receiving instructions from SHO?
31.5 Why SI Arjun Singh did not record DDR with respect to his departure alongwith other officials from Police Station, as per the version given by him in the court?
31.6 The discrepancy between the version given by SI Arjun Singh in the court and the record of Police Station.
31.7 In the mobile phone call made by Shashank Sharma to Police Control Room, there was no mention of any hotel, still it was so recorded in DDR No.19 of Police Post, Manikaran.
Inquest report has been submitted to SDM, Kullu belatedly and definitely after 2.3.2024 as in the said report reference has been made to final medical opinion as to cause of death which bears the date 2.3.2024.
Neither Chander Singh nor Bodh Raj had informed the Police.
In DDR No. 28 dated 10.12.2023 of Police Station, Kullu it was recorded that as per the friends of deceased they were not using any intoxicant.
34.1 Cannabinoids were found in the blood sample of deceased.
34.2 The blood samples of Kushagra, Shashank and Ritika were not tested for drugs.
The police has not shown as to who had corroborated the story of Vaibhav Yadav having taken ill.
It has also not been explained as to why Shashank Sharma went back to Shalom Cafe despite of deteriorating health condition of Vaibhav Yadav, when he was in possession of a mobile phone. Though, an explanation is being rendered that the telephone call could not be made for want of signal, but such version is belied by the facts on record that subsequently, it was Shashank Sharma, who had called the police through mobile phone and Chander Singh had also allegedly informed an employee of Suraj Guest House through phone call.
36.1 It is not the case that there is no landline phone in the Suraj Guest House or nearby.
Admittedly, the balcony of 4th floor of Suraj Guest House, had been provided with grill/railing. It is not understandable as to why Vaibhav Yadav would have launched on to the railing in such a way that he would fall down from the 4th floor especially when he was not feeling well.
Vinay Yadav was associated on 10.04.2024 and thereafter on 17.09.2024 and 18.09.2024 only when Cr.WP No.14 of 2024 had already been registered. Evidently, the conduct of police has been wanting in more than in one way.
Now, the police have also verified that Vinay Yadav (trainee IPS) had made telephone calls on 09.12.2023 firstly to the Police Control Room, thereafter to Superintendent of Police, Kullu followed by calls to Dy.S.P. Manali, Dy.S.P. Kullu and even to the police officials of the rank of Head Constable and Constable.
39.1 It has also been verified that Vinay Kumar Yadav was present at Kullu on 10.12.2023. The explanation, however, rendered by police is that these calls were made only to ascertain the status of the injured and other friends as Vinay Yadav was closely related to Kushagra Yadav.
The allegations of connivance between police officials and Vinay Yadav (trainee IPS) were made in the complaint made by Baldev Yadav on 14.02.2024, but the version of police officials with whom Vinay Yadav had established telephonic contacts were recorded only recently i.e. in the month of September 2024.
We cannot ignore the recognition of right of a victim under Article 21 of the Constitution, following the mandate of Constitutional Bench in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 as under:
“Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.
Hence, the right of a victim as enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution cannot be offered less value than that of the accused; for that will be antithetic to the provision.
The facts of instant case thus demonstrate yet another brazen conduct of a public institution which shockingly has contributed to the already shrunk public trust.
What to comment on the inaction of Police in not registering the FIR on 9.12.2023, it has not registered any FIR in respect of the incident till date even after the complaint made by the father of the deceased.
Once, on 14.02.2024 the father of deceased Vaibhav Yadav had shown his apprehension that his son had been murdered, the police was in possession of an information as to happening of cognizable offence, nothing more was required to register the FIR.
The following legal exposition by a Constitutional Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 also partakes the value and importance of constitutional rights of a victim besides other considerations to hold as under:
Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
Conclusion/Directions
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 [Ed.: This correction is based on para 120.7 as corrected vide order in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 695.] . While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Had the FIR been registered timely the police would have got the power and teeth to investigate and it was after investigation that police could have arrived at its conclusion. In alternative, in case the facts, in the opinion of police, did not warrant immediate registration of FIR, preliminary enquiry should have been completed as per mandate of Lalita Kumari supra.
The instant case not only painfully reflects dereliction of duties by the police officials but also flagrant violation of mandate of law. In result, the casualty is not only the fundamental right of the victim but the entire edifice of trust which the public institutions are mandated to behold.
We are not at all holding even remotely that there was any foul play in the death of Vaibhav Yadav nor can we say so at this stage. It was the duty of the police to have arrived at a just conclusion after fair investigation, which they have miserably failed.
The police have to act dispassionately in a fair manner. Its conclusions have to be based on the evidence collected. In this case, since no independent evidence was collected, the conduct of police cannot be countenanced.
We are not at all oblivious to the repeated cautions sounded with respect to limited and restrictive powers of constitutional courts to direct transfer of investigation to another investigating agency. Reference can be made to a few of the precedents.
(a) State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571
“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.”
(b) Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 9 SCC 795
Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are commonplace when State Police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent.
We have already highlighted the strong evidence indicating gross portrayal of inadequacy by the state Police. The conduct displayed by the Police prima facie can also not be said to be un-biased. There were allegations against the senior police officials. Having held violation of fundamental right of the victim at the hands of state law enforcing agency and also to uphold right of discovery of truth, we find it to be a fit case to direct the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla to immediately register an FIR/ Crime report in the incident and to carry investigations thereafter to its logical end. The State Police through its DGP is directed to provide all original records relating to matter in question to the CBI within three days.
We also are not unaware about the difficulties in collection of the evidence due to lapse of time, still we hope and trust that the CBI with its investigating skills will be able to arrive at the truth of the matter.
We also direct Principal Secretary Home to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of all concerned Police Officials particularly with respect to violation of mandate in Lalita Kumari supra and report the compliance to this Court on 3.3.2025.
The instant petition is disposed of with directions as above.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.