Alleged police interference in a suicide investigation prompted demands for a CBI inquiry and action against a senior officer. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no exceptional case for specialised investigation and no established misconduct, collusion or unfair inquiry by the Lok Ayog.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
- Order reserved on: 01 11-2023
- Order delivered on: 06 12-2023
WPCR No. 165 of 2016
---- Petitioners
Versus
2
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
| ---------------------------------- For Petitioner No.1 |
----------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Petitioner No.2 | : Appears in person |
| For State/ | : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate |
| Res. No. 1, 3, 6, 7 & 8 | |
| For Respondent No.2 | : Mr. A.K. Samantray and Mr. Abhijit Mishra, Advocates |
| For Respondent No.4 | : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General |
| For Respondent No.9 | : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate |
| For Respondent No.10 | : Appears in person |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
C.A.V. Order
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or
3
likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to place and produce all the record related with the petitioner’s and respondent No.10 for just and proper decision of the case.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondent No.5 or any likewise agency under the gracious supervision of this Hon’ble Court to submit the fair investigation report in the cases and record whatever which made and prepared against the petitioner’s by the respondent No.9 and the involvement and indulgence of the respondent No.9 and its extent for just and proper decision of the case.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to take appropriate actions against the respondent No.9 and bonafide action by registering appropriate offence for abusing the process of law and for starting an initiating malice prosecution against the petitioner’s looking to the high placed of posting of the respondent No.9 the strongest and hardest punishment may kindly be proposed against the respondent No.9, so that it will give a message to the society that any person cannot abuse the process of law and cannot disrespect the honor of the family or derail any member of the family or the girl by using their power and status.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and
4
directing to initiate appropriate judicial enquiry over the actual damage caused by the respondent No.9 to the petitioner’s and the respondent No.10 also by examining every aspect of the issue particularly about the continuous meeting of the respondent No.10 & 9 and also the reason for false acquisition leveled against the petitioner’s which was duly forwarded for registration of FIR by the respondent No.10. Any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued by this Hon’ble Court for just and proper decision of the case and also to do the complete justice.
10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”
5
post of Teacher. One family property was given to late Pankaj Shrivastava to construct his house and after construction was given to late Pankaj Shrivastava which is situated in front of old High Court premises in which presently the respondent No.10 is residing. After the marriage of late Pankaj Shrivastava, his relation was cordial with the respondent No.10 for a period of about one year and thereafter the relation started becoming strain. The relations between late Pankaj Shrivastava and the respondent No.10 became strain as a result of abortion of the baby within a period of six months from the date of marriage. Late Pankaj Shrivastava was not ready and willing for the said abortion, but under the pressure and tough treatment, consent was given by late Pankaj Shrivastava and the same was the origin of the dispute between late Pankaj Shrivastava and respondent No.10. After the said abortion, late Pankaj Shrivastava tried to get another issue, but unfortunately the respondent No.10 never accepted the same situation in the life and as a result of the same behavior and circumstances, the relations between them become worst and the relation become so worst in the year 2012, the respondent No.10 deserted late Pankaj Shrivastava and started living at New Delhi. She was taking monthly maintenance amount from the pocket of late Pankaj Shrivastava and she had also instructed to deposit some amount in the account of the father of respondent No.10, which also was being regularly deposited by late Pankaj Shrivastava.
6
7
respondent No.6 & 7. Thereafter, the respondent No.10 started pressurizing the petitioner’s for taking the complaint back and threatened the entire family to be roped in false cases. As the police did not take any action on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner No.1 was left with no option but to make a representation to the Governor on 04.04.2014 and again on 21.04.2014 to the respondent No.8. The State machinery failed to redress the grievances of the bereaved father. However, as already designed by Smt. Neetu Shrivastava, a civil dispute was raised by her after the death of Late Shri Pankaj Shrivastava with the petitioner’s and their family. She designed to dispose of the property belonging to the joint family of late Shri Pankaj Shrivastava by selling and disposing the family property which was strongly resisted by the petitioner’s No.1 with the help of petitioner No.2. In this regard, the petitioner’s took steps to protect their interest and legal notices were sent through lawyer to different institutions such as Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI)-Life Insurance Company and petitioner No.1 and his wife has also filed civil suit for succession and declaration and Injunction against respondent No.10, and in all these cases, they obtained stay from the competent Court of law. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed by petitioner No.1 before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WPCR No.134 of 2014 for a direction to the police to enquire into and investigate upon the complaint made by him with regard to abetment caused by Smt. Neetu Shrivastava. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09.01.2015,
8
directed the police to process the matter and submit final report in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.
9
Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), Bilaspur in which it has been opined by the ASP that no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the respondent No.10 but a case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner’s and their family as per false complaint which was lodged by the respondent No.10. However, earlier the City Superintendent of Police (CSP) submitted a report that no case under Section 498-A is made out against petitioner’s and their family. He further argued that respondent No.9 is not at all legally empowered and entitled to direct for investigation in all the cases or the allegations made against the petitioners by the respondent No.9, specially without there being any allegation by the respondent No.10 that the other authorities have not taken action in her case or complaint. A bare reading of all the 9 offences registered against the petitioners at the instance of the respondent No.10 itself is evident of the fact that there is a malafide intention on the part of the respondent No. 10 which is in connivance with the respondent No. 9 just to cause damage, harm and ruin the reputation of the petitioners. He also argued that on every occasion directly the complaint is made by respondent No.10 to respondent No.9 only and under able influence and power of the respondent No.9, continuously offences are being registered against the petitioners and their family members.
10
there was no connivance between the respondent No.9 and 10. The FIR was duly registered and investigation was done by the officer and the legal proceedings were going on, but immediately after the indulgence of respondent No.9 in this case, everything changed and turned as per the version of respondent No.10.
11
Shrivastava - respondent No.10 in connivance with respondent No.9 got prepared and submitted a report through Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), Bilaspur in which it has been opined by the ASP that no case u/s 306 IPC is made out against the respondent No.10 but a case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner’s and their family as per false complaint which was lodged by the respondent No.10. Thereafter, a complaint was made to Lok Ayog to take action against respondent No.9. The said complaint was rejected vide order dated 08.02.2016 by the respondent No.2 on the basis of inquiry report submitted by Legal Advisor dated 01.02.2026, de hors the provisions of law is an abuse of process of law by the respondent No.9. It was further put-forth by Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, petitioner No.2 in person that the inquiry report was submitted by the Legal Advisor under the supervision of respondent No.9 himself, against whom the application was made to the Lok Ayog regarding the malafide use of his powers and functions.
12
respondent No.9 with regard to sexual harassment upon which an enquiry was conducted by Vishakha Committee and submitted its report, in which it was revealed that the respondent No.10 talked with respondent No.9 on phone about 12 times and thus it is clear that, the respondent No.10 was in regular contact with respondent No.9 and there was no explanation given by respondent No.9 as well as respondent No.10 in this regard. It is also important to mention here that, the allegation made against respondent No.9 by said Asha Yadav was found to be proved and though in the enquiry report it has been recommended that appropriate action should be taken against respondent No.9, but due to approach and conspiracy of respondent No.9, till date the authorities have not taken any action against him.
13
14
reported in (1996) 5 SCC 530 .
15
cognizable and non-cognizable. In cognizable offences, the police have statutory power to investigate without the permission of the Magistrate. Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an officer in charge of the police station, in respect of a cognizable offence. Section 156 authorises such an officer to investigate.
“In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions
1 AIR 1945 PC 182
16
begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then.”
2 AIR 1970 SC 786
3 AIR 1964 SC 221
4 AIR 1955 SC 196
17
provision would show that an officer in-charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise.
“There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits
5 2004 Cri.L.J. 822
6 2003 Cri.L.J. 3117
18
report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate.”
Their Lordships further observed that the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary.
19
“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate 'any other offence' is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of 'LIFE' has been explained in a manner which has infused 'LIFE' into the letters of Article 21.”
v. Sahngoo Ram Arya8 , delineating the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing an inquiry by CBI, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: -
“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in Common Cause (supra).”
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights9 again considering the question of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing CBI to investigate cognizable offence in a State without the consent of the State
20
Government, pertinently observed the circumstances on which the investigation by CBI can be directed, as under: -
“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
others10 , the Supreme Court in respect of unaccounted money and black money constituted Special Investigation Team by holding as
under: -
“56. We note that in many instances, in the past, when issues referred to the Court have been very complex in nature, and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in order to enable the Court, and the Union of India and/or other organs of the State, to fulfill their constitutional obligations. The following instances may be noted: Vineet Narain v. Union of India11 , NHRC v. State
10 (2011) 8 SCC 1
11 (1996) 2 SCC 199
21
of Gujarat12 , Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana13 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India14 . ”
Haroon and others v. Union of India and another15 , where the prayer was made for constituting SIT or directing CBI to inquire into the communal riots erupted in and around District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh in 2013, declined to grant CBI inquiry or constitution of SIT with the following findings: -
“121.In the light of various steps taken by the State, facts and figures, statistics supported by materials coupled with the various principles enunciated in the decisions referred above, we are of the view that there is no need to either constitute SIT or entrust the investigation to CBI at this juncture. However, we are conscious of the fact that more effective and stringent measures are to be taken by the State administration for which we are issuing several directions hereunder.”
12 (2004) 8 SCC 610
13 (2005) 5 SCC 517
14 (2011) 1 SCC 560
15 (2014) 5 SCC 252
22
the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
23
not done fair enquiry and has submitted the closure report. In the said conspiracy, Smt. Neetu Shrivastava as well as Assistant Director of Public Prosecution Shri N.S. Chandel, Bilaspur were included. It is further alleged that while conducting enquiry on the said complaint, though the respondent No.2 has called upon factual report from Director General of Police, but the so-called factual report has been presented by subordinate officers of respondent No.9 through himself. In such as situation, the said report is not reliable on basis of said so-called factual report, without conducting any inquiry, the respondent No.2 has wrongly rejected the complaint and the same has been consigned to record.
24
made out against the petitioners and accordingly, has submitted closure report. It is always open for the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid closure report before appropriate forum.
25
(i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;
(ii) has actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives;
(iii) has indulged in corruption, undue favour, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;
(iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and such pecuniary resources or property is held by public servant personally or by any member of his family or by any other person on his behalf.”
The ingredients of Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002 includes the acts and conducts of the public servant which would be covered in the domain of term “misconduct”.
26
the connivance of respondent No.9 and 10 respectively is also not proved. Hence, we do not find any good ground for interference in the instant case.
Sd/Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Order Date : 06/12/2023
Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Had the petitioners established an exceptional case warranting investigation by the CBI or another specialised agency?
Was interference with the Lok Ayog's rejection of the complaint warranted on allegations of unfair inquiry and police misconduct under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and OthersReferred¶49
(2014) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Asif Azad vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶67
2023 SCC Online Ker 1950 · Who else cites this
Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) V. K. ParasaranReferred¶67
(1996) 5 SCC 530 · Who else cites this
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir AhmedRelied on¶78
AIR 1945 PC 182 · Who else cites this
S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and othersRelied on¶83
AIR 1970 SC 786 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore JoshiRelied on¶86
AIR 1964 SC 221 · Who else cites this
H.N. Rishbud v. State of DelhiReferred¶86
AIR 1955 SC 196 · Who else cites this
M. Narayandas v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶92
2004 Cri.L.J. 822 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Prakash P. HindujaRelied on¶93
2003 Cri.L.J. 3117 · Who else cites this
Common Cause v. Union of IndiaApplied¶127
(1999) 6 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services v. Sahngoo Ram AryaApplied¶127
(2002) 5 SCC 521 · Who else cites this
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic RightsApplied¶127
(2010) 3 SCC 571 · Who else cites this
Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union of India and othersReferred¶116
(2011) 8 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and anotherReferred¶124
(2014) 5 SCC 252 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Surendra Prasad Shrivastava
Pawan Shrivastava
State of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh Lok-Ayog, Raipur
Pawan Dev
Neetu Shrivastava
Ramesh Sinha
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
