- (1.) This application has been filed by the Inspector, who is alleged to have pressurised the writ petitioner in Criminal W. P. No. 1104/ 1999. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that the Inspector went to her house at 10. 00 p. m. on 9th May, 2000 and pressurised her. On the basis of the statement made by the writ petitioner before the Court and the Inspector having admitted that he visited the house but only to inform that the polography of Raj kumar has been fixed and not for any other purpose, the Court came to the conclusion that conduct of the inspector deserves an enquiry.
(2.) The Court therefore directed transfer of the investigation, and further order that the Commissioner of Police may take appropriate action against the defaulting officials. Mr. Sushil kumar appearing for the Inspector contends that the conclusion of the learned Judge that the Inspector is not taking a fair and impartial view of the complaints, is one based on no evidence, and further in the absence of any material, could not have directed the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action by treating the officials to be defaulting officials.
(3.) Mr. Sushil Kumar further says that, in fact, there has been no complaint by the writ petitioner. In our considered opinion, the court appears to have come to a tentative conclusion on the basis of statement made by the writ petitioner mamta, and the statement of the Inspector himself that he did visit the house of Mamta.;