Partly allowed

Rajat Mourya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2017CRLW/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal writ petition challenging the investigation into an FIR alleging police fabrication. The court distinguished prior CBI cases as the SHO is not implicated in fake encounters. It directed the Police Commissioner to transfer the investigation to a senior CID/CB officer who will personally supervise, rejecting the CBI request.

What did the court decide?

Directed GP to withdraw investigation and entrust it to a senior CID/CB officer for personal supervision; rejected prayers for CBI investigation and quashing of FIR.

Rajat Mourya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 2 / 2017

¶3

Rajat Mourya S/o Shri Mangilal Mourya B/c Raiger, aged about 30 years, R/o H.No.3/2 R.H.B. Colony, Gordhan Vilas, Police Station Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur, at present- Flat No.817, U.B. Ora, in front of Imli Phatak, Jaipur P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through Home Secretary, Secretariat Rajasthan Government, Jaipur.

¶7

Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶8

D. C. P. (East) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶9

SHO, Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

Ratan Singh, the then SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur at present posted as SHO, Police Station Vishvakarma, Jaipur.

¶11

Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 517 / 2016

¶14

Harshita Garg D/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Garg B/C Agarwal, Aged about 26 years, R/o House No. D-93, Ladli Path, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur.

¶15

----Petitioner Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan through Home Secretary, Secretariat Rajasthan Government, Jaipur.

¶17

Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶18

D. C. P. (East) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶19

SHO, Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶20

Ratan Singh, the then SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur at present posted as SHO, Police Station Vishvakarma, Jaipur.

¶21

Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman

¶23

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, P.P. for State

¶24

Mr. Jitendra, SHO, PS Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

¶25

(2 of 4)

¶26

[CRLW-2/2017]

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Order

18/08/2017

Reportable

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR No.350/2016 has been concocted and based on fabricated facts, continuance of proceedings on basis of such FIR will be an abuse of process of Court. The footage available in CCTV cameras installed on the outer walls of house of Harshita and outer walls of neighboring Bank reveals that at about 6.00 am Harshita was taken away by Police. On the contrary, as per FIR, secret information about transporting some contraband was received by Police at 6.40 am and it has been stated that Harshita and Rajat Mourya were intercepted at about 7.50 am and on search the contraband narcotic substance ‘Charas’ was found in their possession.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in view of allegations against police officials the matter should not be allowed to be investigated by present IO. It should be entrusted for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In support he has cited 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 202 Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. And 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 221 State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.

¶33

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that there is nothing on record

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CRLW-2/2017]

¶36

to substantiate the issues raised by the petitioner.

¶37

I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record.

¶38

So far, main prayer of quashing the FIR is concerned, after going through the case diary, I do not find any reason to construe by any stretch of imagination that continuance of proceedings on the basis of such FIR will be an abuse of process of Court.

¶39

Investigating Officer is present and case diary is also available. On perusal and hearing, it reveals that on receipt of a secret information from informer by Sh. Ratan Singh SHO the contraband was seized. Hard copies of footage of CCTV cameras have been placed on record of Court file by the petitioners. After going through them and considering all other relevant aspects, facts and circumstance as mentioned in case diary, without making any comments on the merits and demerits or propriety of investigation, it deems appropriate that the investigation should immediately be taken away from the present Investigation Officer and the same should be entrusted to some superior responsible officer.

¶40

7 . I have gone through the cited judgment Rubabuddin’s (supra). It was pertaining to alleged fake encounter conducted by Anti Terrorism Squad of the State Police headed by Police Officer of the Rank of Inspector General. In the instant matter, the investigation is being conducted by SHO and allegations are against SHO. Therefore, there is no need to distrust whole of the

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

[CRLW-2/2017]

¶43

State Police. It is not a case which requires investigation by some Central Police agency. I am quite aware that unfettered Power of entrusting an investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation vests in the High Court and consent of State Government is not an impediment in exercise of such power. In the case of State of West Bengal and another (supra) the same has been declared by the Apex Court.

¶44

Therefore, the criminal writ petition is partially allowed. Directed General of Police is directed to withdraw the investigation in FIR No.350/2016 Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur immediately and entrust the same to a senior officer of CID/CB Branch of the State Police. Further, Head of the CID/CB Branch will personally monitor and supervise the investigation. During investigation representation/documents etc. if any, submitted by the accused side, the same should also be dealt with, considered and properly investigated.

¶45

Rest of the prayers are rejected.

¶46

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J.

¶47

Dheeraj/Jr.P.A/26-27

Rajat Mourya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Mourya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Birbax Singh

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs Banwari Lal

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sushil Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sunita Vs Vasudev Khinani