Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Writ Petition (CRL.) No.6 of 2007
Writ Petition (CRL.) No.6 of 2007
Versus
WITH
WITH
JUDGMENT
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1
to take action. This letter of the Registry of this Court was
Investigation (in short the ‘CBI’) into the alleged abduction and
2
The writ petitioner further seeks a writ of habeas corpus to
Court. It was only on 16th of May, 2007 that the other three
3
December, 2006, an FIR was lodged in which it was stated
point and fled with Tulsiram. In the said FIR, it has been
early in the next morning, he, along with two other persons,
also been alleged, that one of the police officers who was
the Police officer and the bullet was said to have hit the
darkness.
4
Mathur, Additional Director General of Police (prison) who was
the CBI so that the matter goes beyond the influence of the
General for India, (as he then was) who was present in the
5
the said order that the State of Gujarat was asked to produce
acts, some of the details were collected by the State and after
Sheikh, Dist Ujjain, M.P. Three weeks time was granted to the
6
10. On 27th of April 2007, the State of Gujarat submitted an
April 2007.
counsel for the State of Gujarat before this Court that if some
7
the State of Gujarat, this Court held the view that a prima
facie case was made out for issuance of a Rule Nisi calling
cause why the order prayed for should not be granted and also
was made that Ms.Johri was taken off the investigation for
13. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court
8
again submitted before us that this was a fit case where this
this Court should direct the CBI to take over the investigation
General for India (as he then was) also agreed with the
9
14. From the Action Taken Report No. 4 submitted before
IB and (3) Shri Dinesh MN, IPS, SP, Alwar, Rajasthan. The
was also stated that efforts were being made to arrest the
taken from the scene where the body of Kausarbi was alleged
10
Sabarkanta District, in the State of Gujarat. From the Action
Gujarat State.
11
difficult to conclude at that stage that the investigation was
17. Fifth Action Taken Report was dated 2nd of July, 2007. In
Sessions Court.
12
18. The body of Kausarbi was cremated on 29th of November,
found.
ATS officials.
General for India (as he then was) after taking note of the fact
that the 6th Action Taken Report dated 14th of July, 2007 was
13
Conspiracy, abduction, wrongful confinement, murder etc. 13
been listed is one Mr. N.V. Chauhan, PSI who, in the previous
supervision.
25. It was stated that the writ petitioner did not cooperate
14
26. On 2nd of August, 2007, the Seventh Action Taken Report
was filed, which stated that the third person who was picked
detailed the efforts of the State CID (Crime) to make sure that
of the accused.
27. Mr. Jadeja was the one who had first revealed the name
analysis and the matter was pending before the Court. The
providers, would take time. It was also urged that the Habeus
15
29. On 15th of September, 2008, Ms. Johri filed the Eighth
the owner of the Crane which was sent to pull out the tempo
16
Andhra Pradesh who had allegedly helped the accused though
was heard by this Court and the judgment was kept reserved.
matter.
17
parties. After hearing the learned senior counsel and after
charge sheet was submitted by the police and the trial was
18
petitioner. He also relied on a decision of this court in the case
of Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1994 (6) SCC
the fact that the police authorities had not been able to locate
petitioner to show that even after the charge sheet has been
[1992 (1) SCC 397] from which it also appears that although
the charge sheet was filed in that case, this Court directed the
Court Bar Association vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1994
19
to the CBI Authorities after the charge sheet was submitted in
20
the above position in law, this Court, considering the facts and
the State Police Authorities who had already filed eight Action
manner.
34. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the writ
the case of Vineet Narayan & Ors. vs. Union of India [1996
(2) SCC 199] was relied on. In this decision, this Court
observed:
21
“In case of persons against whom a prima facie
case is made out and a charge-sheet is filed in the
competent court, it is that Court which will then
deal with that case on merits, in accordance with
law.
However, if in respect of any such person the
final report after full investigation is that no prima
facie case is made out to proceed further, so that
the case must be closed against him, that report
must be promptly submitted to this Court for its
satisfaction that the authorities concerned have
not failed to perform their legal obligations and
have reasonably come to such conclusion. No such
report having been submitted by the CBI or any
other agency till now in this Court, action on such
report by this Court would be considered, if and
when that occasion arises.”
22
investigation is inadequate is an application under Section
as follows:
‘Lalan’ (VIII) and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2006 (6)
23
SCC 613]. In this decision referring to the case of Sushil
held :
U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 733] in which it was held that when there
24
1973, the CBI Authorities cannot be directed to investigate
38. Before we take up the decisions cited at the Bar from the
side of the writ petitioner, we may deal with the decisions cited
that case, it was alleged that the CBI and the Revenue
the criminal case to the CBI cannot arise at all. From that
25
unable to accept the contention of Mr.Rohatgi that this
sheet is submitted it was not open for the court to hand over
40. In Vineet Narayan’s case (supra), the fact was that the
26
41. In Sushil Kumar Modi (supra), we find that the
investigation was also with the CBI and charge sheet in that
any of the officer of the CBI to approach the High Court or for
oral or otherwise, for seeking the aid of the army for execution
offences and that is the reason this Court observed that after
Court as the case may be. This is not the case before us. It is
true that in the present case, the charge sheet has already
been submitted but that does not debar, in our view, this
Authorities.
27
State of Gujarat, is concerned, we find that this decision was
that case also, the process of monitoring by this Court for the
counsel for the State of Gujarat that it was not open for this
the matter when the police authorities are proceeding with the
28
Court cannot again direct the CBI to investigate into the
the Constitution.
the case of Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India &
M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. [2008 (1) SCC 407]
where this Court held that once the court is satisfied itself that
29
46. Accordingly, Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
the parties and after going through the eight Action Taken
30
when CBI enquiries have already been made and at that stage
this Court held that after the charge sheet is submitted, the
49. This decision clearly helps the writ petitioner for handing
31
independent agency. It is an admitted position in the present
case that the accusations are directed against the local police
should look into the matter and that would lend the final
the gross allegations have been made against the high police
officials of the State of Gujarat and for which some high police
32
officials have already been taken into custody.
the case. In Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT Delhi) & Ors.
this court held that in a case where the police had not acted
33
allegations made against the high police officials of the State in
even at this stage, that is, when the charge sheet has already
follows : -
Judge, Delhi. Inspite of such fact that the charge sheet was
34
filed in that case, this Court directed the CBI to hold further
35
necessary to have investigations through the specialized
senior counsel appearing for the state of Gujarat that after the
it was not open for this court or even for the High Court to
and as the high police officials are involved in the said crime,
36
investigation to an independent agency like the CBI even when
the charge sheet has been submitted, we now deal with the
agency in spite of the fact that the charge sheet has been
are of the view that there are large and various discrepancies
37
two others were picked up by Gujarat Police Personnel,
56. From the charge sheet, it also appears that the third
38
57. With respect to the killing of Kausarbi, it was only stated
26th of November, 2005 and her dead body was taken for
agency of the State of Gujarat has made a false excuse for not
Kausarbi.
58. It also appears from the charge sheet that it identifies the
39
that it was not Tulsiram. In our view, the facts surrounding
evident from the same that they had not been analyzed
as from the eight Action Taken Reports that the motive, which
40
Mr.N.V.Chauhan, PSI who in the previous Action Taken
sheet, we, therefore, feel that the police authorities of the State
with. We have observed that from the record, it was found that
right direction, but Ms.Johri had not been carrying out the
his first report was attached with one of her reports, the same
41
was not forwarded to this Court. Therefore, we are of the view
make the same the basis for investigation and trial. In the case
4 SCC 773], it was held that the object of FIR, from the point of
FIR dated 16th of November, 2005 which was filed following the
not have formed the basis of the real investigation to find the
42
further submitted that the investigation and charge sheet were
silent on the motive behind the ‘killings’. The only motive stated
also find that the State Police Authorities of the Gujarat had to
take help from the other police officials of other States, namely,
that the other State police officials should also help the CBI
also had filed periodical Action Taken Reports and since the
43
elaborate charge sheet had also been filed by the State
44
collected voluminous oral & documentary evidence to ensure
that this would not affect the conviction of the accused in any
45
investigation by the State Police Authorities, Mr.Rohatgi
Court and the report is kept sealed with the Registrar General
46
65. In view of our discussions made herein earlier and the
question that after the charge sheet being filed whether the
monitor the investigation after the charge sheet was filed. The
in order to make sure that justice is not only done, but also is
47
seen to be done and considering the involvement of the State
minds of the victims as well as of the public that still the State
cannot shut our eyes and direct the State Police authorities to
continue with the investigation and the charge sheet and for a
proper and fair investigation, we also feel that the CBI should
in this Court within six months from the date of handing over
to them.
48
66. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances even at this
same within six months from the date of taking over the
report, if necessary.
appropriate manner.
49
Affairs, Government of India, and the Secretary, Home
discharged.
……………………….J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
50
51