- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State of U.P. The petitioner Shailendra Singh Chauhan has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary U.P. Government Administration vide letter number Samayabaddha/Rastriya Manvadhikar Ayog Prakashan No. C.B. 34/Chh : Ma. 1/12-13 (201)/12, as well as order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the Assistant Registrar (Law) National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi that the further investigation in case crime No. 1571 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Sihani Gate District Ghaziabad (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) be conducted by the CBCID Uttar Pradesh. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to stop the further investigation by the CBCID Uttar Pradesh in case crime No. 1571 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Sihani Gate District Ghaziabad (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) be conducted by the CBCID Uttar Pradesh. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner throughout. The facts of the case in brief are that the FIR has been lodged by the petitioner on 13.12.2008 at 10.05 a.m. at P.S. Sihani Gate District Ghaziabad in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 6.12.2008 in case crime No. 1571 of 2008. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet dated 5.3.2009 has been filed in the Court concerned against the accused Satyapal Singh, Anand Prakash, Smt. Rajesh w/o Sri Satyapal Singh and Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned Magistrate concerned took the cognizance on the abovementioned charge-sheet and thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions trial is pending in the Court of learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge Ghaziabad vide ST No. 1075 of 2009 but on the application moved by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, wife of accused Satpal Verma, the National Human Rights Commission issued a direction to the State Government for ensuring the investigation of the case through CBCID. In pursuance of the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the National Human Rights Commission, the State Government took the decision to investigate the abovementioned case by CBCID and such decision has been communicated vide letter dated 2.11.2012. Being aggrieved from the orders dated 2.11.2012 and 17.7.2012, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet dated 5.3.2009 has been submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate concerned on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance on 18.3.2009 and thereafter, after following due procedure the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. At the stage of pendency of the trial, on the application moved by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, wife of accused Satpal Verma, the National Human Rights Commission has taken the decision recommending the State Government to have the investigation by CBCID. In pursuance of the order dated 17.7.2012 the State Government also took the decision for transferring the investigation of the abovementioned case to CBCID. It appears that the real facts have not been brought to the notice of the National Human Rights Commission and the State Government including the fact that in the present case investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court concerned. After taking the cognizance the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions trial is pending. According to The National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994, the procedure for dealing with complaints has been defined in Regulation 8 in which conditions for entertaining the complaints have been specified. Regulation 8 reads as under: "8. Procedure for dealing with complaints.--(1) [All complaints in whatever form received by the Commission, shall be registered and assigned a number and placed for admission as per the special or general directions of the Chairperson before a Single Member Bench constituted for the purpose, not later than one week of receipt thereof. If the Single Member Bench dealing with the case, either for admission or for final disposal, having regard to the importance of the issues involved, is of the opinion that the case should be heard by a Bench of not less than two Members, he/she may refer the case to a Bench of two Members. On receipt of the reference, the case shall be assigned to a Bench of two or more Members, as may be constituted by the Chairperson. Ordinarily complaints of the following nature are not entertainable by the Commission: (a) in regard to events which happened more than one year before the making of complaints; (b) with regard to matters which are sub-judice; (c) which are vague, anonymous or pseudonymous (d) which are of frivolous nature; or (e) those who are outside the purview of the Commission.] (2) No fees is chargeable on the complaints. (3) Every attempt should be made to disclose a complete picture of the matter leading to the complaint and the same may be made in English or Hindi to enable the Commission to take immediate action. To facilitate the filing of complaints, the Commission shall, however, entertain complaints in any language included in Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. It shall be open to the Commission to ask for further information and affidavits to be filled in support of allegations whenever considered necessary. (4) The Commission may, in its discretion, accept telegraphic complaints and complaints conveyed through Fax. (5) The Commission shall have power to dismiss a complaint in limini. (6) Upon admission of complaint, the Chairperson/Commission shall direct whether the matter would be set down for inquiry by it or should be investigated into. (7) On every complaint on which a decision is taken by the Chairperson/Commission to either hold an enquiry or investigation, the Secretariat shall call for reports/comments from the concerned Government/authority giving the latter a reasonable time therefor. (8) On receipt of the comments of the concerned authority, a detailed note on the merits of the case shall be prepared for consideration of the Commission." In the present case, the complaint has been entertained after three years of the commission of the offence whereas it is barred by Regulation 8(1)(a). It is also barred by Regulation 8(1)(b). Regulation 8(1)(a) says that in regard to events which happened more than one year before the making of complaints and, Regulation 8 (1)(b) says that with regard to matters which are sub-judice, the complaints may not be entertained. In such a circumstance, the complaint entertained by the National Human Rights Commission was barred by its Regulation 8. Therefore, the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the National Human Rights Commission becomes illegal because no specific reason has also been assigned for condoning the delay in entertaining the complaint of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi. Neither the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi nor the order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow has shown any reason to transfer the investigation to CBCID at the stage of pendency of sessions trial and no reason has been shown requiring the further investigation also. In such a circumstance, the impugned orders dated 17.7.2012 and 2.11.2012 require interference by this Court. The impugned orders are prejudicing the proceedings of the sessions trial also. Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and the same are set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.;