Vivek Shukla vs Parnav Pandya And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, petitioner in person and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct respondents 3 to 7 to ensure a serious and unbiased investigation in the instant case; to issue a

direction to respondents 3 to 8 to seize the accounts of respondents 1 and 2 as money from these accounts is being used for influencing investigation

of the instant case; for a mandamus commanding and directing respondent nos. 3 to 8 to provide adequate security to the victim till conclusion of the

investigation in FIR No. 0310 of 2020 under Sections 376, 506 and 34 IPC at P.S. Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, and thereafter once again

from the commencement of trial; for a direction to respondents 3 to 8 commanding and directing them to stick to moralities during the course of

investigation, and during the course of trial, as the entire world was looking at them; and for a direction to change the investigation of the instant case

arising out of FIR No. 0310 of 2020 under Sections 376, 506 and 34 IPC P.S. Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar.

When the matter came-up before us on 17.06.2020, Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, sought time till today to obtain instructions

regarding the progress made in the investigation, and to produce the entire records, including the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161

and 164 Cr.P.C.

Today Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, would state, on instructions, that the complainant had, in

her statements both under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., stated that there was no threat to her life from any quarter; investigation is in progress; as

the alleged incident relates to year 2010 nearly a decade ago, investigation would be completed at the earliest and, in any event, within six weeks from

today. Sri Vivek Shukla, petitioner in person, would, however, contend that the complainant had, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stated

that there was threat to her life.

Recording the submission of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State Government, that the investigation would be

completed within six weeks from today and action would be taken thereafter in accordance with law, we see no reason to keep the writ petition

pending on the file of this Court. Suffice it to make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case, for these are all matters

for investigation. It is also made clear that, in case the petitioner has any grievance regarding the manner in which investigation was conducted, it is

open to him to avail his judicial remedies after investigation is completed.

Sri Vivek Shukla, petitioner in person, would then request that the State be directed to provide adequate security to the complainant as and when

she is called by the police officials in Uttarakhand. As the allegations are undoubtedly serious, suffice it, without expressing any view on the truth or

otherwise of these allegations, to direct respondent nos. 2 to 4 to ensure that the complainant is provided adequate protection whenever she is called

into the State of Uttarakhand during the course of investigation.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.