Nipendra Singh Vs State of U.P. & 3 others

2. Nipendra Singh has filed the present writ petition for following reliefs:-

"a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus transferring the investigation of the case vide Case Crime No.703 of 2016 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur to some other independent Investigating Agency of some other district;

b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to arrest the accused persons of the present case so that they could not influence/win over the witnesses of the present case;

c. to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;

d. to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

"In these circumstances the petitioner has no hope to get justice from the police of police Rampur, hence, the investigation of the case be transferred to some other Investigating Officer of some other district of U.P.

The averments which have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition particularly para nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41 appears to be alarming one, prima facie, it appears that the contention of the petitioner has substance.

Let a notice be issued to respondent no. 4 through Chief Secretary of the State of U.P., who may file counter affidavit by the next date in the matter regarding averments made against him in the petition filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also take necessary steps forthwith for service of notice to respondent no. 4.

The Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. is also directed to place the copy of this order before Hon''ble The Chief Minister of the State for necessary information within three days from receiving of the certified copy of this order by the Registrar General of this Court and Chief Secretary of the State shall file his personal affidavit regarding the same by the next date.

The Superintendent of Police, Rampur is also directed to appear in person before this Court and show cause as to why the then Investigating Officer Sri Rajendra Prasad, who was In-charge Inspector of Crime Branch investigating the case under the orders of D.I.G., Moradabad has been transferred to Police Lines, Rampur.

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send certified copy of this order to Chief Secretary , D.G.P., U.P. Lucknow as well as S.P. Rampur for its compliance forthwith.

List the matter on 22nd May, 2017."

5. Brief background of the case is that the petitioner had lodged a first information report against accused persons on 24.10.2016 and the same was registered under the directions of Superintendent of Police, Rampur as Case Crime No.703 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur. It has also been complained that the investigating officer neither recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor the case was investigated properly. Under such circumstances he had again approached the Superintendent of Police, Rampur on 23.11.2016 by sending an application through registered post. When no heed was paid in the matter, he was compelled to approach this Court by preferring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24780 of 2016 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.12.2016 with liberty to file fresh criminal writ petition. Meanwhile, it transpired to the petitioner that in the said matter, the earlier Investigating Officer was going to submit final report and in such situation he approached to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad on 27.1.2017 with request to transfer the investigation to some other police station. Consequently the same was transferred by the D.I.G., Moradabad to Crime Branch on 29.1.2017. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the said enquiry was entrusted to the Inspector Rajendra Prasad, the then In-charge of Crime Branch, Rampur.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached this Court by preferring another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4360 of 2016 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 28.3.2017 with following observations:-

"Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that suitable direction may be issued to the respondents for investigating the Case vide F.I.R. dated 24.10.2016, Case Crime No. 703 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court and filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 24780 of 2016 (Nipendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed as withdrawn as the same soon after lodging the F.I.R. Now, he again approached this Court for fair investigation of the case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct the Investigating Officer of the present case to conclude the investigation and submit a police report before the court concerned expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The S.P., Rampur is directed to ensure the compliance of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

8. In paras 38, 39 and 40 of the present writ petition, serious allegations have been levelled against the respondent no.4, who is Member of Legislative Assembly for Bilaspur Constituency, Rampur and Minister of State Minority Welfare and Irrigation, Government of U.P. Lucknow, alleging that through his mobile number he called the then investigating officer of the case namely Inspector Rejendra Prasad and pressurized him to submit the final report in the aforesaid case. The then investigating officer had recorded the said call made by the Minister concerned and adduced the contents of the same in case diary vide Parcha No.S.C.D. XII dated 6.4.2017. He had also recorded the conversation of the Minister and the investigating officer and got it sealed. The copy of Parcha No.S.C.D. XII dated 6.4.2017 has also been brought on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In case the Court inclines for supplying copy of the CD, the same may also be produced at the time of hearing. It has been further alleged that in response to the said call when the investigating officer Inspector Rajendra Prasad had not paid any heed and he was not willing to comply with the dictates of the respondent no.4, he was transferred from the Crime Branch to Police Lines, Rampur by an order of Superintendent of Police, Rampur dated 10.4.2017. The said transfer order has also been appended as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition.

9. Thereafter the first information report was also lodged against the petitioner, his father and others on 14.4.2017 by his estranged wife namely Raman Deep Kaur and the same was registered as Case Crime No.286 of 2017 under Sections 147, 504, 354, 364, 511 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur showing an incident on 5.4.2017. Copy of the FIR dated 14.4.2017 is also appended along with the writ petition. In this backdrop the petitioner had approached this Court with request that under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no justice can be delivered to the petitioner and as such, the investigation of the aforesaid case may be transferred to some other investigating agency of some other district of Uttar Pradesh. When such a complaint was made and seeing the veracity of the allegations levelled against the Minister concerned, the Court had issued notice to the respondent no.4 and asked the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to file his personal affidavit.

10. While passing the order dated 5.5.2017 the Division Bench of this Court had also asked the Superintendent of Police, Rampur to explain under what circumstances the investigation has been transferred from Sri Rajendra Prasad, who was conducting the investigation in the matter. Today when the matter is taken up, an affidavit has been filed by Sri Keshav Kumar Chaudhary, who was posted as Superintendent of Police, Rampur at the relevant point of time, stating that in the present matter the case was registered as Case Crime No.703 of 2016. Initially the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar Tiwari but the petitioner was not satisfied with the ongoing investigation. He had moved a representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad on 27.1.2017 with request to transfer the investigation from Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur to some other district for fair investigation. In para-7 of the said affidavit, it has also been averred that the then investigating officer had forwarded the final report No.19 of 2017 dated 26.1.2017 on the ground that the present dispute is an outcome of the matrimonial dispute between the parties and the present proceeding relates to possession and ownership of the combine machine and as such, the dispute is purely of civil dispute and unnecessarily the petitioner wanted to drag the aforesaid dispute to the criminal forum.

11. In para-8 of the said affidavit the then Superintendent of Police clearly proceeded to mention that since he was not satisfied with the investigation of the Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar Tiwari of Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, he had asked the investigating officer to withhold the final report and not to submit the concerned Court and as such, he had transferred the investigation with immediate effect from Police Station Civil Lines to Crime Branch, Rampur. He had further asked the Inspector Incharge of the Crime Branch to complete the fair investigation at an early date. In response to the order dated 1.3.2017 the Incharge of the Crime Branch, Rampur deputed the investigation to the Inspector Rajendra Prasad through his order dated 3.3.2017. In para-11 it has been stated that on 10.4.2017 a complaint was made by Sri Satnam Singh Mattu, Advocate, District Court, Rampur against Sri Rajendra Prasad, Incharge Inspector of Crime Branch, Rampur regarding misbehaviour, indecent remark against the Advocate and threatening him to face the dire consequences in case he does not vacate his chamber. In this backdrop, it is claimed that Rajendra Prasad was attached to Police Line, Rampur and Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Circle Officer, Rampur was directed to submit his report. In para-14 of the affidavit it has been averred that even though Rajendra Prasad has been transferred from Crime Branch to Police Lines, the investigation of the present case is still in the Crime Branch vide order dated 18.4.2017.

12. In para-4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. it has been stated that Hon''ble Chief Minister of the State of UP had perused the file on 18.5.2017 and on the said file following endorsement was made "Manniya Mukhya Mantri Ji Avagat Huye".

13. A detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.4 i.e. Baldev Singh Aulak, sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, Bilaspur Constituency, Rampur and Minister of State for Minority Welfare and Irrigation, Government of U.P., Lucknow has also been filed. In order to appreciate the controversy in hand the relevant paragraph nos. 4 to 15 are extracted herein below:-

"4. That on 5.5.2017 one Jasveer Singh came to camp office of the answering respondent i.e. residence and submitted a written representation/complaint. In the said complaint it was mentioned that petitioner herein is torturing Ramandeep Kaur, the sister of the complainant who has been married to him in the year 2002. The complainant and his brothers has purchased a combine machine for Rs.1,25,00,000/- and later the petitioner herein after forging a power of attorney of Ramandeep Kaur sold her 8.50 acres of land against which a criminal case under section 420 IPC was registered against petitioner Nipendra Singh at Police Station Bachrayun, District Amroha which gave rise to a dispute between them.

5. That criminal case i.e. Crime No. 516 of 2012 under sections 406, 307, 504, 506 & 452 IPC registered by the petitioner herein at Police Station Gajraula District Amroha against the complainant, his brother and Ramandeep Kaur. After investigation finding it to be false a final report is submitted. The petitioner herein filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the same allegations which too was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Amroha.

6. That petitioner third time register criminal case i.e. Crime no. 703 of 2016 at Police Station Civil Line, Rampur regarding same ingredients in which the police has forwarded a final report on 26.1.2017. Father of petitioner namely Mohkam Singh who is history sheeter of Police Station Amroha and closely acquainted with the Inspector In-charge Crime Branch, Rajendra Prasad managed to get an order from Deputy Director General of Police Moradabad for reinvestigation and for transfer of the investigation from police station Civil Lines to Crime Branch Rampur. It was also alleged in the complaint that the Investigating officer Rajendra Prasad is making illegal demands from the complainant and has been harassing them.

7. That upon receiving such complaint and to do the needful in the interest in the interest of justice, the answering respondent forwarded the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police Rampur for necessary action with remarks, "NIYAMA-NUSAR AVASYAK KARYAVAHI KAREN" To substantiate the aforesaid fact photo copy of the complaint received from Jasveer Singh along with its annexure are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No. C.A.1 to this counter affidavit.

8. That the answering respondent vehemently deny the allegation made against him specifically in paragraph nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41 namely that the answering respondent has tried to influence or interfere with the investigation of the Crime No. 703 of 2016 by putting undue pressure upon the Investigating Officer of the said case. Answering respondent also deny that said investigating officer was subsequently transferred from Crime Branch due to his influence or interference.

9. That it is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent never ever tried to put any kind of pressure or threat or undue influence upon the Investigating Officer of Crime No. 703 of 2016. It is further submitted that prior or even after the date i.e. 5.4.2016 (the date on which answering respondent received the complaint from Jasveer Singh) never ever met aforesaid Jasveer or knew the petitioner therein. Further answering respondent never issued any direction or made any request to any higher authorities of police administration in connection with the present case, except, forwarding the complaint of Jasveer Singh to Superintendent of Police Rampur on 5.4.2017.

10. That the answering respondent has no connection of any kind or what so ever, with regard to the transfer of Investigating Officer of Crime No. 703 of 2016. It is submitted that the transfer of the Inspector Crime Branch Rajendra Prasad has nothing to do with the answering respondent. The transfer order filed by the petitioner himself as annexure 13 to the writ petition clearly reveals that transfer has bee made by the Superintendent of Police Rampur on administrative ground and in police interest. No where in the said order, it has been mentioned that the same was passed under the influence of the answering respondent. The answering respondent came to know about the said facts only after receiving the copy of the present writ petition from this Hon''ble Court and after reading the averments therein and hence the facts or ground related to the said transfer has to be explained by the higher authorities of the local police administration.

11. That the answering respondent is law abiding citizen of this country and never ever think to interference in due course of administration of justice or put any kind of undue influence in any investigation. There has not been any malafide intention on the part of the answering respondent.

12. That it is submitted that the deponent was having in the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble High Court of resolving and minimizing the disputes through mediation and being the public representative and specifically considering the fact and after thoughtfully perusing the ingredients of the complaint and realizing the pathetic condition of the lady even after 15 years of marriage being tortured and victimized by her husband and in-laws. Alleged act of the answering respondent was not having any oblique motive but was under the intention to settle and resolve the long standing matrimonial dispute between the parties, if possible as per law.

13. That it is pertinent to point out here that now these days a duty has been assigned to every Minster of Uttar Pradesh to hear the complaints and grievances of the public and try to dispose of the same at the earliest in public interest. In this view of the same, hundreds of complaints written and oral are given during the stay in the constituency to the answering respondent which are attended by the answering respondent and his staff personally being representative of the area and are marked and sent to the departmental heads for redressal as per law.

14. That answering respondent has no concern with the relief claimed by the petitioner therein in the present petition as the answering respondent is not having any interest with the present case or any of the parties therein. Hence in the interest of justice this Hon''ble Court may pass any order(s) or direction with regard to investigation of the present case in the interest of justice and which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper and the allegations made against the answering respondent being derogatory and not bona fide, any also be expunged in the interest of justice.

15. That it is further respectfully submitted that mentioning of alleged conversation in the case diary and providing a copy of it to the petitioner, was also not bona fide and legal but it seems that it had been done to give colour to the investigation or under influence of some political rivalry to malign the image of the answering respondent and moreover the prejudice this Hon''ble Court."

15. While submitting the affidavit of compliance by the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, it has been claimed by the then Superintendent of Police, Rampur that on 10.4.2017 a complaint was made by Sri Satnam Singh Mattu, Advocate, District Courts, Rampur against Sri Rajendra Prasad, Inspector of Crime Branch, Rampur regarding misbehaviour and indecent remark against the Advocate and he had been shifted from Crime Branch to the Police Lines. Under the present facts and circumstances, we do not approve the said explanation. Most surprisingly in the present matter, the alleged call was made by the respondent no.4 to the investigating officer Inspector Rajendra Prasad on 6.4.2017. The serious complaint was made to us that when Inspector Rajendra Prasad had not succumbed to such pressure, immediately he had been transferred from Crime Branch to Police Line on 10.4.2017. We have also occasion to peruse the transfer order dated 10.4.2017 which clearly proceeds to mention that Inspector Rajendra Prasad was transferred from Crime Branch to Police Line on administrative ground and in public interest. We have also occasion to see the alleged complaint dated 10.4.2017 so moved by Sri Satnam Singh Mattu, Advocate, District Courts, Rampur and do not find any substance in the said complaint, which could warrant the transfer of Inspector Rajendra Prasad from Crime Branch to Police Lines.

16. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and found that in the present matter, no doubt there is serious dispute and the investigation is going on. In such situation, we are not inclined to make any comment on the on-going investigation but at the same time we observe that the conduct of the respondent no.4 is not at all appreciated and the same cannot be accepted by us.

17. The biggest issue plaguing the police force is political interference specially in the investigation coupled with rampant intervention in transfers and postings. This hurts us both ways. Either you have to approach the MLA or a politician, especially from the ruling party to get transfers or postings. Otherwise, you will be thrown out to an inconvenient place of posting. But if you get transferred on the recommendation of a politician, you will end up obeying him till the end of his term. This scenario has not been changed after the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 1. The aforementioned judgement was based on the principle of separation of powers envisioned in the Constitution, which clearly states that all decisions on transfer of officers and personnel should be devoid of political interference. Most surprisingly in the present matter, we also find that the present transfer order had been passed with concurrence of the police establishment board but the same also raised a question mark regarding the credibility of such decision. It has been alleged that once on the dictate of Member of Legislative Assembly the investigating officer has not proceeded, then he has been ousted from the said place of posting.

18. The crux of the matter is that we have to ensure that police force may work with professional independence, so that police personnel may discharge their duties with utmost sincerity as well as in impartial manner. At the same time the Government has to oversee the police performance to ensure its conformity to the law. The basic and fundamental problem regarding police taken note of was as to how to make them functional as an efficient and impartial law enforcement agency fully motivated and guided by the objectives of service to the public at large, upholding the constitutional rights and liberty of the people.

19. Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly provides for information to police and their power to investigate and Section 154 provides for information in cognisable cases. Section 155 deals with information as to non-cognisable cases and investigation of such cases, whereas Section 156 provides for police officer''s power to investigate cognisable case. Section 157 relates to procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry and Section 158 also provides the procedure for investigation and as to how the report is to be submitted. Once exhaustive procedure is given in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. then it is prerogative and domain of the officer concerned, who has been entrusted with such job to investigate the matter but at no point of time, framers had ever visualised such intervention by the politicians or by the people''s representatives. In such situation, we are of the considered opinion that any intervention made by the local politician would be the intervention in the domain of the investigating officer and such practise cannot be approved by us.

20. Once this is the admitted situation that there was undue pressure exerted by the respondent no.4 on the investigating officer of the case namely Inspector Rejendra Prasad to submit the final report in the aforesaid case, then we do not approve such transfer order. We deprecate such practise wherein the Ministers or the Members of Legislative Assembly intervene in the on-going investigation and they have no right to call or intervene in the on-going investigation. Now we are sitting in the criminal jurisdiction but under the present facts and circumstances we have asked the present Superintendent of Police, Rampur, who is present in the Court, to place Inspector Rajendra Prasad back to the department concerned because it is local arrangement and the same is willingly accepted by the Superintendent of Police but this arrangement will not come in the way of normal/routine transfer. The present on-going investigation may be conducted by an officer not below to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of Crime Branch.

21. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.