Vijay Kumar Kataria vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Saran, J.—These are two criminal writ petitions between the same parties which are being disposed of by this common order.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006 was filed by petitioner, Vijay Kumar Kataria with a prayer that the investigation by the local police in pursuance of FIR dated 5.5.2006 in case crime No. 54 of 2006, under Sections 307/120B IPC, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, was not being conducted fairly and no efforts are being made to arrest the accused. In that case an order was passed on 26.9.2006 giving two weeks'' time to the learned AGA to seek instructions.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2006 was filed by the same petitioner challenging the transfer of the investigation from the local police to the CBCID by the order of the Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P. dated 26.10.2006 (vide annexure 1 to the writ petition). In this case an order was passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. R.C. Deepak and Hon. G.P. Srivastava, JJ. on 6.2.2006 directing the DGP (CBCID) to file a counter affidavit within 3 weeks and also directing the investigating officer of the local police to appear before the Court along with all relevant documents and to file a counter affidavit indicating progress of investigation (including arrest etc.). It was further directed that till the next date of listing (4.1.2007) the order of the Secretary (Home), U.P. Government, Lucknow, transferring the investigation in case Crime No. 54 of 2006 to the CBCID, should remain stayed. The said order was extended from time to time.

We have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, for the petitioner, and Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Upendra Singh for the private-respondent No. 4, Arjun Vasudeva @ Sheru, respondent No. 5, Aman Deep Singh, respondent No. 6, B.L Bhatia and respondent No. 7, Jess Bolina.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006 by Respondent No. 6 B.L. Bhatia and Col. Sudhir Vasudeva has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has filed two rejoinder affidavits in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006 to the counter affidavits of B.L. Bhatia and Col. Sudhir Vasudeva. A counter affidavit has also been filed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Dy. S.P. (C.O.), Baraut, District Baghpat, who was conducting the investigation after it was handed over to him from the earlier investigating officer SI R.B. Naiyar since 14.5.2006, on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 in the said writ petition. He says that he made efforts to arrest the accused but as they were absconding he has obtained an order u/s 82 Cr.P.C. from the court of AGM, Baghpat, and that the investigation was being conducted in a fair manner.

In Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2006, Respondent No. 6, B.L. Bhatia has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.12.2006 and Col. Sudhir Vasudeva has filed a counter affidavit dated 4.1.2007 on behalf of respondent No. 4 and a counter affidavit dated 3.1.2007 was filed by Yashwant Singh Pundeer, Inspector, CBCID mentioning that the investigation was transferred to the CBCID by order of the Secretary (Home), Government of U. P. dated 26.10.2006. The deponent was entrusted with the investigation on 9.11.2006 and after obtaining the case-diary and other material he tried to call the informant/petitioner but he was not available and did not respond to his telephonic calls. He has prepared an investigation plan for conducting the investigation which is annexed as Annexure CA-1 but after he received information that the High Court has stayed the State Government''s order dated 26.10.2006 on 6.12.2006 he stopped investigation in the case. Another counter affidavit dated 4.1.2007 has been filed by Gulab Chandra Arya, Dy. S.P. CBCID, Sector Meerut, on behalf of respondent No. 2 DGP (crime ), CBCID, Lucknow. A rejoinder affidavit dated 4.1.2007 has been filed by the petitioner wherein he admits that one averment in the counter affidavit filed by Dy. S.P. Gulab Chandra Arya, that he had not met the DGP is correct and actually he had met the SP Baghpat who is respondent No. 2 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006. He has also filed rejoinder affidavits dated 4.1.2007 to the counter affidavits of Yash-want Singh Pundeer, Col. Sudhir Vasudeva on behalf of respondent No. 4 and B.L. Bhatia on his own behalf.

Sri G.S. Chaturvedi submitted that as a result of the High Court''s order dated 6.12.2006 the investigation by the CBCID was stopped, but as the case diary was with the CB CID the local police was also handicapped from investigating into the matter. He only made two short submissions:

1.The order dated 26.10.2006 (annexure ''1'' to the Crl. Misc. WP No. 14699 of 2006 has been passed on the basis of a letter written by the accused B.S. Bhatia and any order transferring investigation to another agency at the instance of the accused is not approved in law.

In any case the transfer to the CBCID by the State government''s order dated 26.10.2006 is contrary to the guidelines mentioned in the Government Order dated 15.9.1995 which has been quoted in extenso in paragraph 33 of the writ petition.

As against this fairly lengthy arguments were addressed by Sri Satish Trivedi and Sri Upendra Singh to the effect that:

The version given by the petitioner in his FIR is wholly false, concocted and imaginary and no reliance could be placed on the same.

As the petitioner has himself questioned the fairness and integrity of the investigation by the local police in Crl. Misc. WP No. 11425 of 2006, in view of Section 115 of the Evidence Act he is estopped from raising any objection to the transfer to the CBCID by the State Government by the order dated 26.10.2006 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2006.

The statements of the informant-petitioner and the witnesses are full of contradictions and inconsistencies and no reliance can be placed on the same.

The FIR on 5.5.2006 was lodged in a malafide manner because there was business rivalry of the petitioner''s company Kavery Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the company of respondent No. 4 Envirotech Overseas Ltd. which was a UK-based company and which had bagged the contract for some work from the Delhi Jal Board V which the petitioner''s company was earlier doing and the Envirotech Overseas Ltd. had employed some of the ex-employees of the petitioner''s company who had misappropriated some amounts to the tune of Rs. 2 crore and 10 lakh by presenting stolen cheques to the Punjab National bank A/C of M/s. Environtech Overseas Ltd. and depositing them in the petitioner''s account in M/s. Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and an FIR in this respect was lodged on 9.2.2006 at PS Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi, against the petitioner and one Sushil Mehta who were even jailed in the said case, and as a counter-blast the respondents 4 to 7 had been falsely implicated in this imaginary incident.

The petitioner along with his co-accused Sushil Mehta had assaulted Arjun Vasudeva @ Sheru, Respondent No. 4 on 7.5.2006 and a case was registered as FIR No. 557 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323 at PS Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi. In this case the U.P. police also assisted the petitioner and there is a letter of the SP, Baghpat to the C.O. Khekhra that he had learnt that one sub-inspector S.I. R.K Naiyar and two constables had gone to Malaviya Nagar, Delhi on 7.5.2006 on the petitioner''s car to arrest the accused in Case Crime No. 54 of 20 u/s 307 and 120B IPC of P.S Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat without the authority of the C.O. Khekra. The petitioner had disappeared with Rs. 2 crore belonging to Arjun Vasudev and that with this intention the petitioner had filed a false criminal case against Arjun Vasudev and two others and his injuries were fabricated. By this letter the SP had also directed the C.O. to get the injuries of the injured Vijay Kataria re-examined by a medical board. Sri Trivedi has also referred to the letters sent by the C.O. to the SP (annexure 6 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 6). wherein he has confirmed that the petitioner had come to PS Chandi Nagar and had unauthorisedly taken SI RB Naiyar and two constables in his car to effect the arrest of the accused of his FIR in Delhi, and opined that the incident in PS Chandi Nagar appears to be doubtful, although he was annexing the medical reports of the petitioner. A news report has also been annexed by respondent No. 6 (at annexure 7 to the counter affidavit) showing that the SO concerned has been sent to Lines and the SI had been suspended. From this it was sought to be argued by Sri Trivedi that the registration and investigation of the case by the local police was not honest.

The X-ray report of the petitioner''s injuries only revealed radio opaque shadows, but showed no bony injury.

7.There was also some alibi evidence that some persons such as R.K. Joshi, advocate, A.K. Singh, Praveen Bhargava and others had filed affidavits to the effect that respondent Arjun Vasudev was with those persons around the date and time of incident;

There is no illegality, much less violation of any fundamental rights under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution in the order of the State Government transferring the investigation to the CB-CID. There was thus no ground for challenging the transfer of the investigation to the CBCID by the petitioner, and in fact there was a violation of the fundamental rights of the respondents under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as the investigation was conducted against the respondents on the basis of a wholly false and concocted FIR lodged by the petitioner. Sri Trivedi also referred to a few cases of the Supreme Court in this regard.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, and examining the writ petition, and affidavits of the parties we think that the contentions raised by Sri Chaturvedi are valid and deserve to be accepted and that the contentions raised by Sri Trivedi are misconceived and wholly devoid of any substance.

The allegations in the first information report lodged by the petitioner were that on 5.5.2006 at about 9.20 pm when the petitioner was returning from Shiv Nursery, Baghpat, on the Pilana Road, near the Sakar Putthi tubewell, he stopped his Qualis car for the purpose of urinating. At that time a Skoda car stopped there. Three persons dismounted the car and raised a cry that the petitioner should be killed. Thereupon Arjun Vasudeva @ Sheru fired with a country-made pistol at the petitioner. On seeing other cars passing by, the assailants, including Arjun Vasudeva, and B.L. Bhatia decamped from the spot. The said action was taken in pursuance of a conspiracy of the accused. The report of this incident was lodged the same day at 10.15 pm at PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, under Sections 307/120B IPC. At 11 pm on 5.5.2006 the petitioner Vijay Kumar was examined by medical officer, Community Health Centre, Baghpat, who found multiple gunshot wound of entry on the back right side overlying right scapula region over an area of size 13 cm x 9 cm. The pellets were about 5 in number and a collar of abrasion was present in each with margins of the size 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm. A corresponding tear was present on the petitioner''s shirt. According to the information of the doctor the injury was due to fire arm. It was kept under observation and X-ray, interior, posterior view to look for FBs and further management at P. L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut was advised. The injuries were described as fresh.

In pursuance of the direction of the SP, Baghpat, the petitioner appeared before a medical board headed by Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ramesh Chandra, and two other doctors at CMC, Baghpat on 11.5.06. They found multiple wounds, 5 in number, covered with dark coloured hard scabs with surrounding inflammatory reaction. The size of the wound was on an average 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm, and its depth could not be ascertained. These injuries were in an area of 13 cm x 3 cm over right scapula region. The patient complained of pain on the scapula region and on palpation tenderness was present. The injury was kept under observation and the patient was referred to P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut, for X-ray and management. The duration of injury was about one week. Thereafter X-ray was conducted at the Radiology department of P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut, on 12.5.2006. According to the supplementary report, which has been filed with the counter affidavit of respondent No. 6 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2006, the medical board found that the X-ray of the right shoulder AP views and X-ray of chest showed 4 radio opaque shadows of metallic density about 4 mm in diameter. No bony injury was seen, and no injury to deeper tissues was seen, hence the injury which was kept under observation was described as simple in nature and caused by a firearm.

From the FIR and the injury reports of the petitioner dated 5.5.2006, 11.5.2006 and supplementary report dated 18.5.2006, which also describes the X-ray conducted on 12.5.2006, it cannot be said that the version mentioned by the petitioner in his FIR is wholly imaginary and concocted as is being contended by Sri Trivedi. Furthermore simply because there were some inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses, which were read out at length by Sri Upendra Singh as to whether the injury had been sustained on the shoulder or in the back of the chest (Kamar) and a slight variation about the place where the incident occurred, such minor inconsistencies could not lead to wholesale rejection of the statements of the petitioner or the witnesses. In any case, such minor variations (which are more indicative that the statements were recorded in a natural and untutored manner) can be no reason for supposing that the version given by the petitioner was wholly false or that the investigation was inherently tainted. Likewise, from the mere fact that the respondents were said to be persons of status as they were described as senior executives in Envirotech Overseas Ltd. provided no reason for either quashing the investigation or transferring it to some other agency.

Even if there was existence of rivalry between the petitioner''s company, M/s. Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Envirotech Overseas Ltd. because the latter had allegedly displaced the petitioner''s company and obtained the contract from the Delhi Jal Board and because an FIR had been lodged on 9.2.2006 against the petitioner and Sushil Mehta at PS Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi, for illegally forging and depositing some cheque in the petitioner''s bank for which a case was registered under Sections 380 411 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120B IPC on an FIR lodged by respondent No. 6, no automatic inference could be reached that the FIR lodged by the petitioner for the incident dated 5.5.2006 was necessarily false and by way of counter-blast as the medical report dated 5.5.2006 on the date of incident which was subsequently confirmed by the medical board''s report dated 11.5.2006 at CMC Baghpat and the X-ray which was conducted at PL Sharma Hospital Meerut on 12.5.2006, all indicated the receipt of a firearm injury. Moreover, the alleged act of embezzlement and the implication of the petitioner for the same in the FIR dated 9.2.2006 whilst it could be argued to be a motive for the false implication of respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, it could also constitute a motive for committing the crime in question on 5.5.2006 against the petitioner as it well settled that the factum of enmity is a double edged sword which cuts both ways. It can either be a reason for false implication by the petitioner, or a motive for committing the crime by the respondents. In any case, this is a matter to be investigated by the investigating agency, and it is open for the respondents to raise whatever defences they have at the appropriate stage during the trial. It cannot be pre-judged in this writ petition, and certainly constitutes no ground for justifying the transfer of the investigation by the State government.

Likewise, the fact that after the FIR lodged by the petitioner for the assault on him on 5.5.2006 at crime No. 54 of 2006 under Sections 307 and 120B IPC at PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, he went to Delhi along with some police personnel of PS Chandi Nagar in his car which included the SI R.P. Naiyar (about whom the CO Khekhra and the SP Baghpat have adversely commented), could at best be described as an overenthusiastic and unnecessary act on the part of the police personnel of PS Chandi Nagar, but it can never lead to an inevitable inference that the investigation of the local agency would be unwarranted and unfair. In any case, at present as the eventual investigation was being conducted by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Dy. S.P. (CO) Baraut since 14.5.2006 and no fault has been pointed out in the investigation being being conducted by this officer. We rather think that the gratuitous adverse comments about the genuineness or otherwise of the incident by the SP Baghpat and the C.O. Khekhra were unnecessary and uncalled for at the stage of investigation.

The respondents have also sought to mention some alibi material in the form of notarised affidavits of certain persons about the absence of principal accused Arjun Vasudeva from the place of incident. These are matters which will be gone into by whichever investigating agency investigates the case, and it will be open to the respondents to raise their defences relating to alibi etc. at the appropriate stage during trial. These affidavits provide no ground whatsoever for justifying transfer of the investigation to another agency.

There is also no substance in the argument of Sri Trivedi that as the petitioner himself had questioned the fairness of the investigation in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006 he was estopped from pleading in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2006 for quashing the order of the State Government dated 26.10.2006 transferring the investigation from the local police to the CBCID. It may be noted that in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2006 the only prayer made by the petitioner was to direct the respondent local investigating officer of the case in case Crime No. 54 of 2006 to investigate the case in a fair manner without being influenced by the pressure of the accused persons and to effect the arrest of the accused. There is nothing illegitimate in the petitioner making such prayer. However, whether the accused needs to be arrested or nor, is a discretion to be exercised by the investigating officer. However, by simply filing the said writ petition by no stretch of imagination can the principle of estoppel apply for preventing the petitioner from filing the writ petition challenging the order of the State Government transferring the investigation from the local police to the CBCID at the instance of an accused. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has been cited by Sri Trivedi, has absolutely no relevance or application to the matter. Section 115 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:

Estoppel.- When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Here no declaration, act or omission was done by the petitioner which induced the respondents to believe a thing to be true or to act upon such belief from which he was estopped from resiling because the respondents had altered their position to their disadvantage as a result of his representation. The illustration to the said section will make the matter clear, which is being quoted hereinunder:

Illustration

A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that , certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.

The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Here the petitioner simply prayed that the police of PS Chandi Nagar, Baghpat, should act in a fair manner without being influenced by any of the pressures of the accused persons. This could provide no reason to the accused persons for exercising their pressure and influence with the State government for getting the case transferred to the CBCID. In this connection, it has sagely been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another, that normally the accused has no locus standi for choosing a particular agency for investigating the case against the accused. In paragraph 8 of the above law report it has been mentioned: "The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with."

The Government Order dated 15.9.1995 also rightly refers to a tendency that very often investigations are transferred to the CBCID so that immediate action by the local police including arrests could be stalled and that such a practice needs to be discouraged. That the respondents appeared to be wielding undue influence is apparent also from the unwarranted adverse comments given by the SP (Baghpat) and the C.O. Khekhra (in all likelihood at the instance of the respondent accused) alluded to above. We also find that the petitioner is right in contending that neither was the crime so complex nor did it have any international, inter-divisional or inter-state ramifications nor were the conditions such that the local police could not investigate the matter with impartially nor was there any such local public opinion which raised doubts on the fairness of the investigation by the local police in the present case. The aforesaid criteria mentioned in the Government Order are pre-conditions for transfer of investigation by the State Government to the local police have been adverted to in the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt Ramwati and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001(42) ACC 751 Bhopal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (34) ACC 371, and a D.B. decision in Cr. Misc. Writ No. 6516 of 2006, Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Ors. (in which one of us Hon''ble Amar Saran J was a member).

Simply because an earlier incident had taken place in Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi about which an FIR dated 9.2.2006 has been lodged against the petitioner and, thereafter, the present offence had taken place in District Baghpat on 5.5.2006 and thereafter another incident took place on 7.5.2006 when the petitioner had gone to Malaviya Nagar, in an attempt to apprehend Arjuna Vasudeva @ Sheru for which the FIR was lodged at Crime No. 557 of 2006 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, PS Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi against the petitioner, would give no reason for inferring that the instant incident which had taken place on the Pilana Road, near the Sakar Putthi tubewell in district Baghpat, was not an independent incident requiring investigating by the CBCID and that the particular incident against the respondents 4 to 7 had inter-divisional or inter-state ramifications which needed investigation by the CB CID and the local police was not competent to investigate the matter.

The reference by Sri Trivedi to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and his attempt to justify the order of the State government transferring the investigation to the CB CID as within its supervisory powers for checking an oppressive investigation (because the incident is described as imaginary) is devoid of merit. Likewise we think the reliance on the decisions of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939 , Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India, , P. Kasilingam Vs. P.S.G. College of Technology, , Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, are misplaced as they have no bearing on the controversy in question. Whenever any crime is committed, action had to be taken for investigating the same, and if such investigation by a local agency is described as intrinsically biased and faulty without any adequate material to substantiate such a contention, then merely pontificating and repeating the words of Articles 14, 19 and 21 as magical incantations cannot lead to any such inference that the normal investigation by the local police violates the respondents fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 14 or 21 et al, and on that basis the respondents can make out no case for justifying an order of the State Government transferring the investigation at the instance of the accused, a practice which has been severely castigated by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions above-mentioned. In fact, it would be arbitrary and unreasonable and a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India if an exceptional procedure of permitting the investigation to be conducted by the CBCID is crafted out in this case without there being any pre-conditions for such an exercise in the light of the criteria mentioned in the G.O. dated 15.9.95 and the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court alluded to above, and which exercise as the G.O. rightly points out has the hidden object of stalling action by the local police, to investigate the offence or to arrest the offenders. Sri Trivedi could not question the amplitude or width of the powers of this Court under Article 226 for questioning an order of the State government transferring the investigation from the local police to the CB CID even when the said order is in the teeth of the relevant G.O. dated 15.9.95 and various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court.

In such circumstances we have no option but to set aside such an illegal order of the State government transferring the investigation from the local police to the CB CID.

We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Government dated 26.10.2006 transferring the investigation to the CBCID and direct the CBCID to immediately return the papers relating to the case to the local police which shall complete the investigation at the earliest and take any coercive measures against the accused as maybe needed.

Before parting it may be clarified that the observations hereinabove have been made for disposal of these writ petitions, and should not prejudice the investigation and trial in any manner.

With these observations, these writ petitions succeed and are allowed.