- (1.) The petitioner has invoked the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction for marking an enquiry to CBI to enquire into case FIR No. 501 dated July 11, 2012 registered under Section 365 IPC at Police Station City Sirsa, regarding missing of Jatinder Singh @ Gora, a castrated Sadhu of the Dera. Petitioner claims that he is being falsely implicated by the police at the behest of Gurmeet Ram Rahim, head of Dera Sacha Sauda as the petitioner had opted to become a witness in a murder case pending against Gurmeet Ram Rahim and his followers in a criminal case for killing a journalist Ram Chand Chattarpati, which is being tried in CBI Court at Panchkula. Besides the said prayer the petitioner has also prayed that his arrest should be stayed during the pendency of the petition and Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, should provide adequate security to the petitioner. Petitioner has averred in his petition that he is closely associated with Dera Sacha Sauda since long. Petitioner worked in the printing press of the Dera and had come in close links with the internal wing of the trusted Sadhus. He claimed that he has witnessed certain incidents which go to show that Gurmeet Ram Rahim head of Dera Sacha Sauda is involved in murder of Ram Chander Chattarpati, a journalist of Sirsa, who used to write articles in order to reveal the true picture of Gurmeet Ram Rahim for which reason Gurmeet Ram Rahim got him killed. One PW Khatta Singh has resiled from his statement. The petitioner decided to give statement against Gurmeet Ram Rahim in CBI Court. He moved an application through his counsel on May 12, 2012 alongwith a draft statement which he intended to give before the Court. The Special Judge, Panchkula on May 19, 2012 had issued notice for July 2, 2012 on which date the CBI filed its reply. The petitioner had been collecting evidence against Gurmeet Ram Rahim and his henchmen. In the process of collecting evidence against Gurmeet Ram Rahim and his henchmen, the petitioner contacted the old Sadhu of the Dera namely, Jatinder Singh @ Gora who was running a Mobile shop in Sirsa town. He provided a list of about 400 Sadhus who had been castrated at the Dera through the doctors who were also disciples of Gurmeet Ram Rahim and he also gave a hand written note to the petitioner in which he disclosed how the operation was performed on the trusted males with a promise that they would come near Gurmeet Ram Rahim. A copy of the written slip of Jatinder Singh @ Gora has been placed on record as annexure P-4. The petitioner was in constant contact with Jatinder Singh on inter-net. Jatinder Singh himself had been castrated. He being one of the victims out of 400 similarly circumstanced sadhus, was feeling frustrated and wanted himself to be treated to marry and have children. Petitioner claims that he alongwith Jatinder Singh had collected the evidence about another youth of Malout who had gone missing under suspicious circumstances. Petitioner had last chatted with Jatinder Singh @ Gora on July 6, 2012. The petitioner claims that FIR has been registered on the complaint of Harmeet Singh, father of Jatinder Singh @ Gora in which he has alleged that his another son Gurpal Singh saw petitioner alongwith his son Jatinder Singh. Besides the petitioner there was another person of age of 50-55 years accompanied by an armed man. FIR No. 501 dated July 11, 2012 has been registered under Section 365 IPC at Police Station Sirsa City. On July 8, 2012, the petitioner alongwith Ram Kumar Bishnoi, Sukhpal Singh and gunman of Bishnoi were together throughout the day and had gone towards the shop of Jatinder Singh but it was found locked. In view of said circumstances, petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of Gurmeet Ram Rahim, head of Dera Sacha Sauda. He seeks a direction that the matter should be inquired by CBI and the contents of FIR No. 501 dated July 11, 2012 under Section 365 IPC, Police Station Sirsa City should be inquired into by CBI.
(2.) Notice was issued to the State. A reply has been filed to the effect that on the allegations of Harmeet Singh, father of Jatinder Singh, the present FIR has been registered. A thorough and impartial investigation is being conducted by the local police. The cell phone of Jatinder Singh @ Gora has been recovered from two employees of Railways Department at Lucknow who told that the cell phone alongwith SIM was found in the compartment of train when they were cleaning the compartment. One SIM card belonging to Jatinder Singh has also been recovered. The efforts are being made to search Jatinder Singh @ Gora. Pamphlets containing the photograph of Jatinder Singh @ Gora have been got published. All the Director Generals of Police and Superintendents of Police of the nearby States have been contacted for their assistance for search of missing person. But whereabouts of Jatinder Singh @ Gora are not known. Efforts were also made to join the petitioner in the investigation by issuing notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. but he could not be served as he is avoiding to join investigation and is not making himself available to the local police. He has filed the present petition alleging that he has been falsely involved. The local police has been conducted a fair and thorough impartial inquiry. So far as the case against Gurmeet Ram Rahim, the head of Dera Sacha Sauda is concerned, it does not have any connection with the present case. The State was directed to furnish the status report regarding the investigation. On August 1, 2012 Inspector Arun Kumar present in the Court was asked whether the petitioner is required to be arrested. He informed that he is required for interrogation but is not required to be arrested. Considering the circumstances in the light of guidelines of Supreme Court regarding arrest, in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1994 4 SCC 260, it was ordered that the petitioner will not be arrested till August 9, 2012 in order to enable him to appear in the Court of CBI to pursue his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for appearing as a witness. As the petitioner himself offered to join investigation and there being no intention on the part of the investigating officer to arrest him as per his statement made in the Court, it was ordered that the petitioner would appear before the investigating officer on August 4, 2012 at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation. It was observed that joining of investigation will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the investigating officer to arrest the petitioner in case circumstances so warranted on any future date. The rights of the petitioner to avail other statutory remedies available to him were also not prejudiced.
(3.) I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The only grievous of the petitioner is that as he has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. offering to appear as a witness against Gurmeet Ram Rahim, an influential person, in order to deter him to pursue his application, he has been falsely involved by the State under the influence of Gurmeet Ram Rahim. It is also not out of place to observe here that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. field by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Court concerned. As mentioned in the reply, the investigation is being conducted fairly. The petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court as to which provisions of Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with investigation was being violated. The investigating officer present in the Court had specifically informed the Court that at present his custody was not required. It is also not out of place to observe here that the police protection has already been provided to the petitioner. In view of these circumstances, it is not a case where any statutory provision is being violated by the prosecution agency. No doubt, this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, coupled with inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent any abuse of the process of the Court can issue any directions in the interest of justice but the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and not at its whim or caprices. In a recent judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others etc., 2012 1 CriCC 437, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "VI. WHEN CBI ENQUIRY CAN BE DIRECTED: 44. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P.& Ors. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr., 2002 AIR(SC) 2225, this Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors, 1999 6 SCC 667 and held that before directing CBI to investigate, the court must reach a conclusion on the basis of pleadings and material on record that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The court cannot direct CBI to investigate as to whether a person committed an offence as alleged or not. The court cannot merely proceed on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and think it appropriate that inquiry should be made by the CBI. 45. In Divine Retreat Centre , this Court held that the High Court could have passed a judicial order directing investigation against a person and his activities only after giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is not permissible for the court to set the criminal law in motion on the basis of allegations made against a person in violation of principles of natural justice. A person against whom an inquiry is directed must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard as he is likely to be adversely affected by such order and, particularly, when such an order results in drastic consequence of affecting his reputation. 46. In D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari & Anr., 2009 10 SCC 488, this Court held that an order passed behind the back of a party is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on this score. Therefore, a person against whom an order is passed on the basis of a criminal petition filed against him, he should be impleaded as a respondent being a necessary party. 47. This Court in Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2011 AIR(SC) 3168, after considering the various judgments of this Court, particularly, in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 3386; Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, 1998 8 SCC 661; Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan (VIII) v. Union of India, 2006 6 SCC 613; Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 3175; and Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors., 2011 3 SCC 758 ; held that the court can transfer the matter to the CBI or any other special agency only when it is satisfied that the accused is a very powerful and influential person or the State Authorities like high police officials are involved in the offence and the investigation has not been proceeded with in proper direction or the investigation had been conducted in a biased manner. In such a case, in order to do complete justice and having belief that it would lend credibility to the final outcome of the investigation, such directions may be issued. 48. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that a constitutional court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie, a case against the accused. However, the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities. The court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary so to do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible.";