- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for directing the investigation of the FIR being No. 52/11 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar, to be conducted by the CBI.
(2.) THE petitioner-complainant had filed the complaint against the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar, which forwarded the same to the Police Station, Mahila Thana, Alwar for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. THE said complaint was registered as FIR No. 52/11 in the said Police Station for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. THEreafter the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had applied for the anticipatory bail before the concerned court and the same was granted by the court. THE petitioner-complainant apprehending that the investigation was not being conducted properly, she approached the then Home Minister, Rajasthan for transferring the investigation from Police Station, Mahila Thana, Alwar to Dausa and the said request was granted by the State Government. Accordingly the investigation was transferred to the Superintendent of Police, Dausa. According to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Dausa thereafter gave the investigation to S.H.O., Kotwali, Dausa. THEreafter the Public Prosecutor, Alwar moved an application on 20.10.11 for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 to 4 before the concerned court at Alwar. THE said application is still pending before the said court. It further appears that the present petitioner had also moved an application for the cancellation of the bail before this court by filing the Cr. Misc. Cancellation of Bail Application being No. 9250/11, however since the learned Public Prosecutor was to move the application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused before the court of Sessions, Alwar, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said application filed before this court. This court vide the order dated 13.10.11 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said application. It further appears that the petitioner subsequently came to know that the Addl. S.P., Dausa had written a letter to the Public Prosecutor, Alwar on 1.12.11 to withdraw the application seeking cancellation of bail as the application was filed by the complainant in the High Court to cancel the bail of the respondents. The petitioner therefore, again approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister for transfer of investigation to CBI. According to the petitioner since the said request was not considered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the present petition has been moved. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is financially very strong and otherwise very influential person and, therefore, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Dausa had written the letter to the Public Prosecutor directing him to withdraw the application for cancellation of bail, even though the learned Public Prosecutor had filed the said application after having been satisfied that the bail granted to the respondents deserved to be cancelled. He also submitted that the investigation is likely to be closed at the instance of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by pressurising the concerned Investigating Officer to file challan only against the respondent No.2 who is husband of the complainant and not against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He therefore, submitted that the investigation be transferred to CBI. The learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 2962, State of Punjab Vs. Dalvinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. Etc. AIR 2012 SC 364, to submit that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation to CBI for carrying out the impartial and fair investigation. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.K. Gupta for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner has filed the frivolous petition after having failed to influence the Investigating Officer by exercising the political pressure. He also submitted that at present the investigation is going on and it is for the concerned court to monitor the investigation directed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. 2012(1) Criminal Court Cases, 437(S.C.), he submitted that the inherent powers cannot be exercised to direct the Investigating Officer to investigate the case in a particular manner or by a particular investigating agency. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in case of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571, and also in the case of T.C. Thangaraj Vs. Engammal and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 328, the learned counsel has submitted that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transferring the investigation from one agency to another should be sparingly exercised. In the instant case, the respondent No.2 is the husband of the complainant and respondent No.3 is the mother-in-law and the respondent No.4 is the sister-in-law of the complainant. The petitioner-complainant having filed the complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar, the same was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station, Mahila Thana, Alwar, however the petitioner being not satisfied with the investigation being carried out by the said police station, had approached the then Home Minister for transferring the investigation and, therefore, the investigation thereafter was transferred from SHO, Mahila Thana, Alwar to Superintendent of Police, Dausa. It appears that thereafter the application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was also moved by the concerned Public Prosecutor at Alwar, which application is still pending. However, the petitioner on the basis of the some letter written by Addl. Superintendent of Police, Dausa to the Public Prosecutor Alwar directing to withdraw the application seeking cancellation of bail, had again approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister for transferring the investigation to CBI. However, he having failed in the said attempt has filed the present petition. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that from the averments made in the petition itself, it clearly transpires that the petitioner has more access and is more influential than the respondents inasmuch, as once the investigation was already transferred from one police station to the other at her instance, and thereafter again she had approached the Chief Minister for transferring the investigation to CBI. It is also pertinent to note that the application filed by the petitioner before the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail was withdrawn by her as the concerned Public Prosecutor, Alwar was to move the application for cancellation of the bail and that the said application moved by the Public Prosecutor is still pending. The court does not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the letter written by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Dausa, the Public Prosecutor, Alwar would withdraw the said application seeking cancellation of bail. There is also no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the influence of the respondents, the challan would be filed only against the respondent No.2 and not against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The learned counsel has not been able to substantiate the allegations that the respondents are influencing the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, it is axiomatic that it is for the concerned court to decide whether to accept the investigation report submitted by the Investigating Officer or not. It is also settled position that the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot direct the Investigating Officer to investigate the case in a particular manner and as per the wishes of the complainant or the accused. It is expected that every investigation should be carried out fairly and impartially by the Investigating Officer. In a recent decision in case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, 2012(1) Cr.C.C. 437 (S.C.), the Apex Court has, considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. observed as under :- "The order cannot be passed by-passing the procedure prescribed by law. The court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct a particular agency to investigate the matter or to investigate a case from a particular angle or by a procedure not prescribed in Cr.P.C. Such powers should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. "
(3.) IN another case of T.C. Thangaraj Vs. V. Engammal and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 328, the Apex Court, considering the opinion of the Constitution Bench in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571, observed in para 10 as under :- "It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by CBI is to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and an order directing CBI (sic to conduct investigation) is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police." In view of the above stated settled legal position, the court does not find any substance in any of the allegations made by the petitioner for directing the investigation to be conducted by the CBI. The present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;