Saurabh Sahai vs State of U.P. and Others

Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

Counter-affidavit has been filed in this case.

An order dated 17.8.2009, passed by the State Government, whereby the State Government has transferred investigation from the civil police to C.B. C.I.D. in Case Crime Nos. 347/08, 351/08 and 373/08 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506, I.P.C., 384/506, I.P.C. and 420 and 506, I.P.C. respectively, police station Hussainganj, district Lucknow, State v. Shailendra Pratap Singh, has been challenged by means of this petition.

It is pointed out that the said order was passed on an application made by an accused, which was endorsed by Subhas Yadav, M.L.C. by his letter dated 9.7.2009. In our view, this is wholly a mala fide use of power by State Government. In Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another, , it has been held that the investigation should normally not be transferred at the instance of the accused. The same view is also taken in Union of India v. W.N. Chaddha AIR 1993 SC 1083. In the compounding situation of the present case, we find that this is at the instance of the M.L.C. that the said transfer has been made, which is a blatant mala fide exercise of power. This Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (LXVI) 2006 ACC 676 : 2006 (3) ACR 2468, has also observed in paragraph No. 8 as under:

This Court notes that unwarranted political interference with the investigation process specially when the accused belongs to the ruling party and the abject submission of police officers who readily issue no objection certificates without assigning valid reasons to such illegitimate demands of the political leadership, has become the order of the day. Unfortunately, this trait is not only confined to the present political dispensation, but such interference with the investigation process has become a hallmark of all or any political party who may be in power at the moment. This has resulted in delayed or unfair investigation which has the potential of eroding people''s faith in governance, recourse to extra-legal pressures for preventing the police from booking the real offenders of crimes which thereby go unpunished, and eventual break down of civil life. The said orders of transfer of investigation are also in clear violation of the decisions of this Court and Government orders, one of which is dated 15.9.1995 laying down the conditions when an order entrusting investigation of criminal case to the C.B. C.I.D. may be passed.

Again further in the same decision, we have held in paragraph No. 10 as under:

These decisions and Government orders provide inter alia that normally in routine matters the investigation should be done by the local police and transfer of investigation to C.B. C.I.D. could only be made if (1) the nature of the crime is so complicated and involved that it is not possible for the local police to properly investigate the same, (2) the crime has international, inter-State or inter-division ramifications, (3) the local conditions are such due to which it has become difficult for the civil police to investigate the case fairly, and (4) such conditions have arisen due to which a doubt is created in the mind of general public that the local police is not investigating the case fairly.

No good reason has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. in the counter-affidavit why this transfer of investigation from the civil police to C.B. C.I.D. was justified.

In this view of the matter, we quash the order dated 17.8.2009. Local police is now directed to investigate the case expeditiously and conclude the investigation within three months.

With these observations, this writ petition is allowed.

Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned A.G.A. within two days for necessary compliance.