AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) Heard Ms. B.S. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents although the names of G.A., Nagaland is reflected in
the cause list.
2) The two petitioners herein have filed this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus
and/or certiorari, thereby directing investigation into the abduction of the petitioners from Hotel Star Moon, Dimapur under East Police Station,
Dimapur be handed over to an independent agency or authority outside the State of Nagaland.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioners has made elaborate submissions regarding the background facts of the case.
4) In the writ petition, the narration of events is contained in about 20 pages, for which this order is not burdened with the entire narration. It would
suffice to mention that the case projected by the petitioners is that on 19.05.2020, they were abducted from the hotel they were staying and taken to
jungle before about 500 armed personnel of Naga Army of the Interim Government of Nagaland. Demand of Rs.3.00 Crore as ransom was made and
with intervention of some persons named in the writ petition, the petitioners were brought back to their hotel and they somehow managed to escape
and boarded 2.30 am train from Dimapur and reached Guwahati at about 7.00 a.m. on 29.05.2020. The sequence of interconnected events can be
compartmentalized in 7 (seven) compartments. One incident relates to arrest of one Vishwatma @ Bharat Gandhi on 13.03.2020, who is stated to be
a political person. The second relates to misbehavior and assault on two advocates on 21.03.2020 and the petitioners have expressed shock at the ill
behavior of police personnel named in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. Third relates to narration of events before press, but on receipt of a phone call
allegedly received from the mobile phone of the herein before named Vishwatma @ Bharat Gandhi, and that due to alleged threatening by the police
officers named by the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 informed the press not to report the incidents that happened with them. Fourth relates to their
distrust on their local advocates engaged in the State of Nagaland and their grievance against two politicians named in para-13 and 14 of the writ
petitions. Fifth incident relates to alleged incident of kidnapping of the petitioners on 19.05.2020 from one hotel named in para-15(i) of the writ petition
by gun trotting men and taking them to deep jungles and demand of ransom of Rs.3.00 Crore. The sixth sequence of event relates to the petitioners
having left Dimapur on 28.05.2020, reached Guwahati on 29.05.2020 by train and while on the same day the petitioner no.1 went to Delhi, the
petitioner no.2 went to Rangia at his political party office and left for Delhi on 30.05.2020, then reached Lucknow on 02.06.2021 and then reached his
ancestral home at Jaunpur on 04.06.2020. The seventh incident relates to submission of written complaint was made at Sikara P.S. on 05.06.2020,
which the police refused and the complaint was then sent by e-mail to the same Police Station and also to DCP., Outer Delhi.
5) On a query of the Court that none of the persons named in the writ petition have been arrayed as parties, yet their conduct is sought to be inquired
into through investigating agencies from outside the State of Nagaland, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, police,
politicians, press and insurgents are acting in tandem and in connivance with each other, which is why in broad daylight the petitioners could be
abducted, and the police did not take any action even when the petitioners were missing from their hotel for 19.05.2020 to 27.05.2020, rather highly
placed police officials had not only turned their blind eye towards the petitioners but aided and assisted in their kidnapping under the nose of the
politicians named in the writ petition. It is also stated that the police personal did not accept any FIR from the petitioners and accordingly, it is
submitted that the petitioners have no faith in the police or State administration of the State of Nagaland. It is also submitted that in connection with
bail of Vishwatma @ Bharat Gandhi, it is submitted that they were compelled to take assistance from only one particular lawyer, but the petitioners
did not receive the requisite assistance from the engaged learned counsel. It is also submitted that although no judicial order was passed to accept bail
of a local surety only, but their advocates and the local people on whom the petitioners were relying had insisted that a bailor from their own State
should give surety. It is submitted that under such compelling circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. By posting a brief written
synopsis of argument on whether other persons are necessary parties, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted as under: “The
petitioners in this writ petition seek relief only against the inaction of the police; co-operation of the police with the offenders; non-registration of the
complaint/FIR; and non-investigation of the offence complained. The petitioners have only stated facts which have come to their knowledge but does
not know the whole truth and who and how many people are involved in the crime. The whole truth can be revealed only upon a free and fair
investigation by an independent Agency. The writ petition is no way directed in any manner against the persons/officers named in the writ petition and
whether these persons are involved or not and to what extent and in what manner can be revealed only upon a proper investigation. Besides the
petitioner does not pray for an adjudication on these issues and only prays for an investigation to investigate into the abduction of the petitioners and
find out the truth and the persons involved in the conspiracy. It is also humbly submitted that for the relief seeking an inquiry/investigation into a
criminal offence the accused are not necessary parties as such facts shall not be adjudicated in a writ petition.†The said written synopsis is kept as a
part of record.
6) It is seen that it is not the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had made any prior request for police protection and that the police had failed to
protect the petitioners. The petitioners have not disclosed any documents like travel ticket, hotel bill etc. from which the Court can presume that the
petitioners had entered the State of Nagaland, stayed in a particular hotel and that they had returned back on the dates mentioned in the writ petition.
7) No Act, Rules or any case law has been shown before the Court that if any citizen lands in another city of State, the State must give them all
security notwithstanding that no complaint is made to competent police personnel or to Administrative executives of the area seeking police protection.
8) Moreover, it is seen that although the petitioners have named several persons including politicians, police personnel, their own political party
members and others in various paragraphs of this writ petition, but none of those persons have been arrayed as parties to this writ petition so as to
answer to the allegations made against them. In the context of non- joinder of necessary parties in a writ petition, the Court is of the considered
opinion that a writ petition is not similar to lodging of an FIR in respect of cognizable offence where it may always not be possible for the victim to
identify the perpetrator of crime and therefore, it is a settled law that a FIR is not bad merely because some accused persons are not named therein.
The Court is reminded of the principle that one whose interest or standing may be vitally affected, is a necessary party in a writ proceeding. If one
needs any authority on the point, the case of (i) Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. Secretary to the Government of Assam & Ors., 2004 (1) GLT
117: (2004) 2 GLR 56; and (ii) Vijay Kumar Kaul V. Union of India & ors., (2012) 7 SCC 610. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the case of N.A. Shareefa V. State of Kerala & Ors, WP(C) 19431/2013 and 19462/2013 decided on 28.03.2014. On a perusal
of the said judgment, it is seen that as many as eighteen respondents are named therein and from the said judgment, it also appears that specific
allegations were made in respect of the parties impleaded as respondents. Therefore, the cited case of N.A. Shareefa (supra) is not found to be an
authority on the point that in a criminal writ petition the parties who may be adversely affected are not required to be arrayed as respondents.
9) Therefore, if the writ petition is admitted, the Court would have to embark upon a roving and fishing enquiry in the absence of several persons
whose names do not figure in the complaints before the police and therefore, are proper and necessary parties. This is not one of those cases where
some person has gone missing without case or someone has dies mysteriously or certain financial fraud, or other heinous crimes have been committed
where it is not possible for the writ petitioner to identify perpetrators of such fraud or crime. In the instant case, the petitioners have named many
persons in this writ petition and specific allegations have been made against those individuals. Therefore, the Court finds no reason not to put such
persons to notice before arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that some cognizable offence has been committed requiring proper investigation from
agencies from outside the State. Therefore, this writ petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties.
10) In the present case in hand, admittedly no FIR has been submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, there was no opinion for the State machinery to
put to action to investigate the matter. As already mentioned hereinbefore that the petitioners having left Dimapur on 28.05.2020, reached Guwahati
on 29.05.2020 by train and while on the same day the petitioner no.1 went to Delhi, the petitioner no.2 went to Rangia at his political party office and
left for Delhi on 30.05.2020, then reached Lucknow on 02.06.2021 and then reached his ancestral home at Jaunpur on 04.06.2020 and only thereafter,
complaint was lodged before the police on 05.06.2020. Accordingly, it is seen that the petitioners regained their freedom on 27.05.2020 and that even
in course of their alleged abduction, the kidnapers had permitted the petitioner no.1 to call of senior party persons and asked to arrange the ransom.
However, no FIR was filed at the earliest opportunity, rather the petitioner no.2 got time to be at Rangia, a mofussil town very near to Guwahati and
attend party office. Therefore, in the absence of any material particulars, the Court is unable to arrive at a conclusion that the police of the State of
Nagaland have failed to investigate any cognizable offence or that the investigation carried out so far is defective, not up to the mark and order
investigating agencies from outside the State to start a fishing and roving criminal enquiry.
11) Moreover, it is the admitted case of the petitioners that they have lodged complaint before two police stations, first with Sikara P.S. on 05.06.2020
and then with DCP, Outer Delhi. Having lodged their complaint, it is not the case of the petitioners that the said police do not have the competence or
jurisdiction to investigate. In the event the police do not investigate, appropriate remedy is available in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12) In the complaints appended to the writ petition as Annexure-II and III, it is apparent that it does not contain all the names of politicians and police
personnel whose names are mentioned in the writ petition. The complaints also do not disclose alleged demand of Rs.3.00 Crore as ransom. Thus, for
the purpose of appreciating facts as disclosed in the writ petition, it appears ex facie that the writ petition contains a lot of improved version than the
complaints lodged before the concerned police.
13) Therefore, in light of the discussions above, this not found to be a fit and proper case to issue notice to the respondents and as such this writ
petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents.
14) Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioners or the investigation by the police or other investigating agencies in respect of
complaints already lodged by the petitioners. This order shall also not prejudice the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in the event they are
aggrieved by the investigation carried out by the police before whom complaints have been lodged.
15) No opinion is expressed whether the police before whom complaints have been lodged have competence to investigate because it is not the
pleaded case of the petitioners that the police where complaints were lodged had no competence to investigate.
16) Writ petition stands dismissed without issuing notice upon the respondents. No order as to cost.