Dismissed

Bibi Bano v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2019CRLP/7182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the transfer of criminal investigation from Prayagraj to Kaushambi. It held that since the charge-sheet was submitted and four accused arrested, the investigation was complete, rendering the petition infructuous without further interrogation of transfer reasons.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed off as the investigation was completed and the petition rendered infructuous.

Bibi Bano Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7182 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bibi Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A..

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 1, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

¶4

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 2.2.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Secretary U.P. Government at Lucknow) transferring investigation of case crime no. 11/2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., from police station- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj to police station- Puramufti, District -Kaushambi.

¶5

It appears that petitioner's son, namely, Siraj Ahmad had filed first information report at police station- Phoolpur, DistrictPrayagraj on 17.1.2018 against five named accused and one unknown person, which was registered as case crime no. 11 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. The investigation of the case had proceeded at a lethargic pace, therefore, it appears, Siraj Ahmad filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7583 of 2018 with certain prayers, which was disposed off by an order dated 5.4.2018 directing the Investigating Officer of the case to conclude the Investigation and submit a police report before the Magistrate expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law.

¶6

It appears that when the investigation was not completed within the specified period, the petitioner, who is mother of the informant, filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4276 of 2018.

¶7

The Contempt Application was dismissed by order dated 16.8.2018.

¶8

In the meantime, by the order impugned, the investigation of the case was assigned to respondent no. 6 (Pradeep Kumar Singh, Prabhari Nirikshak, Puramufti, Kaushambi).

¶9

Assailing the order of transfer this petition has been filed by complaining that adequate efforts were not made by the investigating agency to effect arrest of the named accused

¶10

persons. It has also been alleged that two accused persons had criminal history but they were not arrested. It was also claimed that there was no justification to transfer the investigation particularly when investigation should have been concluded by the Investigation Officer as per earlier direction of this Court.

¶11

On 15.3.2019, we had passed the following order:-

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as effective investigation of Case Crime No. 11 of 2018 at P.S. Phoolpur, District Prayagraj was not being conducted in a fair manner, a Criminal Misc Writ petition No. 7583 of 2018 was filed for ensuring that the investigation is concluded expeditiously and that the accused are arrested.

¶13

The said writ petition was disposed off by order dated 5.4.2018 requiring the investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within a period of four weeks.

¶14

Grievance of the petitioner is that despite order of this court dated 5.4.2018, the main accused were not arrested and now to further delay the investigation, by order dated 2.2.2019, the investigation has been transferred to Sub Inspector Kaushambi for no good reason.

¶15

Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of State-respondents. He shall seek instructions and file affidavit of a responsible officer in the police department disclosing the material on the basis of which decision was taken to transfer the investigation of the aforesaid case from District Prayagraj to District Kaushambi.

¶16

The affidavit shall be filed by 3.4.2019.

¶17

List this case on 3.4.2019.

¶18

A copy of this order be supplied to learned AGA for compliance.

¶19

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit of compliance of the Special Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. at Lucknow has been filed.

¶20

In the affidavit it has been stated that charge sheet has already been submitted in three parts, namely, charge sheet no. 57, dated 3.5.2018, thereafter, charge sheet no. 57-A of 2019, dated 7.2.2019, and, subsequently, charge sheet no. 57-B of 2019, dated 15.4.2019. It has also been submitted that except for two accused, namely, Ahmad Taukeer @ Bichchi and Mohd. Saddab all the accused persons have been arrested. It has been stated that one accused, namely, Manoj Tiwari could not be arrested but he has himself surrendered after the order to take coercive action, under Section 83 Cr.P.C., against him. It has also been disclosed that coercive steps have been taken against Ahmad Taukeer @ Bichchi and Mohd. Saddab and they will also be brought to books. It has thus been submitted that as

¶21

investigation has been completed and all the accused named have been charge sheeted, the petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the order passed by this Court on 15.3.2019 has not been complied with in true letter and spirit, inasmuch as the ground for transferring the investigation has not been satisfactorily disclosed in the affidavit of the Special Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. at Lucknow. It has also been submitted that from the transfer order it appears that investigation was subsequently assigned to Pradeep Kumar Singh, Prabhari Nirikshak, Puramufti, Kaushambi but the charge sheet has been submitted by the earlier Investigating Officer, Shamsher Bahadur Singh.

¶23

So far as first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards incomplete disclosure of reasons is concerned, we are of the view that once a charge sheet has been submitted and the named accused persons have been chargesheeted and four of them have already been put behind the bars that argument is no longer available specifically when there is nothing shown to us that the investigation has left any lacuna. In so far as contention that charge-sheet should not have been filed by Shamsher Bahadur Singh is concerned, we find that Shamsher Bahadur Singh have been investigating the matter and, therefore, charge sheet has been submitted by him on 7.2.2019 relating to the accused, who had been in jail since 12.11.2018 and, therefore, if the charge sheet had not been timely submitted he might have been entitled to default bail.

¶24

Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that normally investigation should not have been transferred at the behest of the accused, but that argument has lost its relevance once the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶25

Under the circumstances, as the charge sheet has already been submitted and nothing was shown to us to demonstrate that some lacuna has been left in the investigation justifying further investigation into the matter, there is no justification for this Court to keep the matter pending or to issue any specific direction. Moreover, if some of the accused have not been arrested the Court where charge sheet has been submitted can ensure their arrest .

¶26

The petition is disposed off.

¶27

O rder Date :- 16.5.2019 A. Pt. Singh

Bibi Bano v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibi Bano v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Saini and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishambhar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwandas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Taju and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others