- (1.) Heard Sri R.V. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Sweta Pandey with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.10.2014 passed by the S.S.P., Allahabad by which the investigation of case crime No. 282 of 2014, under sections 419, 420, 409, 120-B I.P.C. and case crime No. 658 of 2014, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Naini, district Allahabad has been transferred to crime branch, Allahabad and a mandamus may be issued to the respondent No. 3 (S.S.P., Allahabad) not to disturb the investigation and the same may be continued from the Police Station Naini, Allahabad.
(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the accused in case crime No. 282 of 2014, under sections 419, 420, 409 and 120-B, I.P.C., P.S. Naini, district Allahabad. Its F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Dushyant Kumar, Chief Manager, LIC, Yamunapar, Branch Naini, Allahabad against Smt. Sweta Pandey, Smt. Nisha Devi, Rajababu Singh, Triloki Nath Verma and Puneet Kumar Pandey on 17.4.2014. The petitioner is the first informant of case crime No. 658 of 2014, under sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Naini, district Allahabad on 15.9.2014 against Jagmohan Mehrotra, Mohd. Mustaq, Shailendra Pratap Singh, Jokhu Lal-respondent No. 6, Dushyant Kumar Singh-respondent No. 7 and Vikas Purwar. The investigation of the case crime No. 658 of 2014 which has been lodged by the petitioner has not been done fairly and without doing the proper investigation. The final report has been forwarded under the pressure of its accused-Jokhu Lal, the then Chief Manager, L.I.C. of India, Yamunapar, Allahabad and his relative Sri Brij Lal, IPS. The investigation has been completed under the pressure of the above persons and the final report was forwarded by the I.O. Within three days of lodging the F.I.R. without recording the statements of the witnesses. When the petitioner came to know, she made protest by moving application before the S.S.P., Allahabad and Inspector General of Police, Allahabad. Presently, further investigation is pending which has also been entrusted to Crime Branch, Allahabad. The impugned order has been passed by the S.S.P., Allahabad under the pressure of Sri Brij Lal, IPS and Jokhu Lal (respondent No. 6) whereas the police of P.S. Naini, Allahabad was doing proper investigation. The investigation of the present case has been transferred without any proper reason which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and a direction may be issued to do the investigation by the police of P.S. Naini, Allahabad.
(3.) In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the prayer made in the present writ petition with regard to the impugned order dated 19.10.2014 is not correct because by the impugned order, the investigation of case crime No. 282 of 2014, P.S. Naini, district Allahabad has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Allahabad but by the impugned order, the investigation of case crime No. 658 of 2014, P.S. Naini, Allahabad has not been transferred to the Crime Branch, Allahabad. Such prayer has been made only to show that the petitioner is the first informant of case crime No. 658 of 2014 whereas by the impugned order, the transfer of the investigation has been made of case crime No. 282 of 2014 in which the petitioner is the accused. The impugned order is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities. It has not been passed under pressure of any person including the respondent No. 6 and Sri Brij Lal, IPS. The impugned order has been passed by the S.S.P., Allahabad on the report submitted by the Officer-In-Charge, of P.S. Naini, district Allahabad for transferring the investigation from the police station Naini to other Investigating Wing or police station. Thereafter, the investigation of the above mentioned case crime No. 282 of 2014 has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Allahabad which is working under S.S.P., Allahabad. The Crime Branch is a better investigating agency. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same may be refused.;