Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. - (1.) THE petition, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court in public interest, has been filed by the President of the Bar Association at Mathura.
(2.) ON 6 December 2014, a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 944 of 2014 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Penal Code was registered at Police Station Highway, District Mathura. The first information report was lodged by the victim and the fifth respondent has been named as the accused. The fifth respondent was a member of the Bar Association. His membership has since been cancelled after the first information report was lodged. It appears from the record that the brother of the fifth respondent addressed a communication to the Chief Minister. The communication was endorsed by the OSD (Judicial) in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister to the Director General of Police. The representation/communication by the brother of the accused sought a transfer of the investigation from Mathura to Firozabad. The Director General of Police passed an order on 18/22 December 2014, stating that in accordance with the 'expectation of the State Government', the investigation should be transferred. This communication was addressed by the Director General of Police to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra. On 23 December 2014, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura passed an order recording that the investigation has been transferred on 23 December 2014 by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra to District Firozabad. In the meantime, the statement of the victim had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 12 December 2014. The petitioner has also annexed to the petition, a copy of a communication dated 17 December 2014 by the victim to the Chief Minister recording that her statement had already been recorded by the Magistrate on 12 December 2014 and apprehending that the accused, who is absconding, would pose a danger to the life of her parents. She has also alleged that her father had been taken into custody.
(3.) OUR attention has been drawn to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vandana Srivastava v. State of U.P. : 2014 (87) ACC 428 in which the Court has expressed serious disapproval of the manner in which investigations are being transferred resulting in shaking the confidence of citizens in the criminal justice system of the State. The Division Bench has observed as follows: "11. We are very sorry to record that the State will not follow any guideline in the matter of exercise of discretion qua transfer of investigation and would continue to act arbitrarily. This Court is facing petitions every day where orders of transfer of investigation are being challenged not only on merit but also on the ground that they contain no reasons. 12. The practice must be put to an end. Such kinds of orders of transfer of investigation have the affect of loss of confidence of common public in the criminal justice system of this State. 13. The higher authorities the higher the responsibility for exercise of power of transfer on cogent grounds and sparingly. Power of transfer of investigation cannot be made a tool in the hands of accused or other involved in the matter to prolong the investigation on some pretext or the other.";