Anant Vikram Singh vs The State Of U.P Thru Principal ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6808 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. 7
 

 
Writ Petition No. 9487 (MB) of 2014
 
Anant Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
 

 

 
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.

Hon. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Sri S.M. Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

The petitioner Anant Vikram Singh has preferred the writ petition with the following prayers:

I.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 /investigating agency to restrain itself from arresting the petitioner in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 14.09.2014 registered at P.S. Amethi in District Amethi vide case crime No. 1120 of 2014 under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307 (later on converted to section 302 during investigation), 336, 427, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act (Annexure No. 1), in the interest of justice, and

II.Issue a writ, order or direction of appropriate nature directing that investigation of the criminal case lodged in pursuance to the FIR dated 14.09.2014 registered at P.S. Amethi in District Amethi vide case crime No. 1120/2014 under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307 (later on converted to section 302 during investigation), 336, 427, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation/oppo. Party No. 5;

III.Issue a writ, order or direction of appropriate nature instituting a commission of judicial enquiry to be headed by a Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court, and calling for the report/recommendation from the said commission within such stipulated time frame as may be deemed fit followed by appropriate direction for drawing relevant proceedings depending upon the recommendation/report against guilty persons including from local administration, police etc.

IV.Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest.

V.Award the cost of petition to the petitioner."

The facts in brief of this case are that an FIR has been lodged by Sri Mohd. Haneef, Officer Incharge of P.S. Amethi, District Amethi on 14.09.2014 at 12.20 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 14.09.2014 at 10.50 A.M. near Bhupati Bhawan in vicinity of village Ram Nagar alleging therein that on 14.09.2014 a protest was being made by the petitioner on information of the arrival of his father Dr. Sanjay Singh, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) and Smt. Amita Singh at their residence Bhupati Bhawan along with the police and administrative officer. The police of the different police stations of District Amethi, P.A.C. R.A.F. and fire brigade were deputed. On arrival of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Singh the petitioner called the nearby people by giving telephonic message to make the protest. It was told on telephone and at the outer gate of Bhupati Bhawan that in any condition Smt. Amita Singh would not be permitted to enter into the Bhupati Bhawan for which whatever to be done. On it about 250-300 people armed with lathi, danda, bricks and stones came out from adjoining villages and were gathering near the Bhupati Bhawan. The police and administrative officers tried to persuade the mob and from loud speaker announcement was made for leaving the place and to go their houses because section 144 Cr.P.C. was imposed there. In the meantime, during investigation from the side of the mob stone pelting was made on police and administrative officers then to disburse the mob from the vehicle of the fire service water cannon was done but the mob continued in stone pelting. To disburse the mob the police force used Chilly bombs, Rubber bullet and Tear gas. The police and administrative officers asked the petitioner Anant Vikram Singh to make an appeal before the mob to maintain the peace but without agreeing with anyone the petitioner was encouraging the mob and consequently mob pelted the stones, fired shots and hurled the bombs. On being chased by the police the co-accused Sunil Bari, Vijay Pratap @ Kallan, Chintu, Sanjay [email protected] Lulli, Billu Bari, Awadhesh Singh and other persons hurled the bombs, extended the threat of life, fired shots at about 10.50 A.M. The shot fired by co-accused Sunil Bari hit the constable Vijay Pratap Mishra. Immediately he was taken to CHC, Amethi in an injured condition through Ambulance, due to stone pelting made by the mob administrative officers, police officers and other officials sustained injuries. The mob damaged the government vehicles and private vehicles which were parked on the road side. The shop keepers closed their shops and people of the locality closed the doors of their houses and panic atmosphere was created. The video graphy of the alleged incident was done.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is son of Dr. Sanjay Singh, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) and Smt. Garima Singh. The father of the petitioner neglected and left Smt. Garima Singh later on. The father of the petitioner developed illicit relations with one Amita Modi wife of Late Sayyed Moti, a renowned Badminton player and Dr. Sanjay Singh got filed a civil suit. The suit was hurriedly disposed of by ex parte decree dated 27.3.1995 and thereafter Dr. Sanjay Singh entered into second marriage with Smt. Amita Moti on 21.4.1995 when the mother of the petitioner came to know about the same, she filed two proceedings i.e. Civil Suit No. 271 of 1995 in the same court of learned Civil Judge, Sitapur for declaring the ex-parte decree null and void as the said suit was never filed by her for getting her marriage dissolved. She also filed an application under section 151 CPC before the trial court against ex-parte decree, the same was dismissed by the civil court treating it not maintainable. Against the order of the civil court the petitioner's mother preferred a revision before this High Court wherein the High Court set aside the ex-parte decision and the case was remanded. The order passed by Hon'ble High Court on Civil Appeal No. 1311 of 1998 in the Supreme Court of India wherein the order setting the ex-parte decree passed by this court was affirmed subject to limitation, modification with the finding and the suit having been filed by an impostor was vacated and the said question was left open vide order dated 03.03.1998, Thus marriage of Dr. Sanjay Singh with Amita Modi is nullity in the eyes of law and there is no sanctity at all. The petitioner joined merchant navy, Dr. Sanjay Singh neglected his wife Smt. Garima Singh, his daughters and entire family and he was not ready to live with them, he was only interested in residing with Amita Modi. As such the petitioner left the job and started to look after his mother and sisters. The petitioner as well as his family member have not been provided adequate security despite the fact that there is an immediate threat perception, representation has been given by the petitioner and his mother to the Principle Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P., Director General of Police, U.P. but no decision has been taken and communicated to the petitioner. On 25.7.2014 the petitioner, his family members and driver were attacked at the behest of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi, its FIR was lodged in case crime No. 893 of 2014 under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC at P.S. Amethi, its cross FIR has been lodged by Santosh Singh in case crime No. 893-A of 2014. Against the alleged FIR the petitioner preferred the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7758 (MB) of 2014 in which vide order dated 21.8.2014 the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed till credible evidence is not collected by the I.O. On 14.09.2014 it was published in the newspaper that Dr. Sanjay Singh and Amita Modi were arriving at Amethi but the petitioner was not having any such information. However, the local police already knowing the programme, the police force took position out side the palace as early as 5.00 O'clock in the morning. At about 8.30 A.M. on 14.09.2014 the S.D.M. and Circle Officer, Amethi came to the residence of the petitioner at the palace and told him to be confined, inside his room as Dr. Sanjay Singh and Amita Modi were coming to Amethi palace. About an hour after the petitioner got information that Dr. Sanjay Singh and Amita Modi were shortly entering the palace and their entry was being facilitated by the police in the presence of the District Magistrate, S.P. Amethi, Circle Officer and S.D.M. Amethi. The police personnel themselves broke the lock which was put by the petitioner on one of the main gates through which the said people resorted to enter the palace. It was done by the police on the direction of their higher officers as District Magistrate, S.P. And others. In respect of the shooting, the FIR has been lodged by Officer Incharge of P.S. Amethi. The petitioner had no role whatsoever in the unfortunate incident which took place out side the palace on roads in which the policeman died. There was no information about invocation of section 144 Cr.P.C. The allegation made in FIR are absolutely false and frivolous. The main assailant namely Sunil Bari has been arrested and his statement was recorded by the police. According to the FIR itself the conspiracy can not be smelled against the petitioner at the behest of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi. The unfortunate incident occurred on 14.09.2014 as a result of conspiracy hatched by Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi in collusion with local administration so that petitioner or his mother be killed or they be arrested. Under the influence of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi they obtained a decree of divorce against the mother of the petitioner by impostor and they also managed to get off from the investigation of Syeed Modi's murder case in the past. The attitude of local administration and police is partisan and unfair. The District Magistrate, Amethi had given statement to electronic media namely ETV Uttarakhand on 14.09.2014 itself that Anant Vikram Singh was trying to stop Dr. Sanjay Singh from entering the palace, Sanjay Singh was the owner of the house, that is why the police did not arrest him on his entry.. Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi are influential persons having deep routes in the politics and connection with the political persons including those belonging to ruling party of the State of U.P.. The petitioner has no trust on the police of State of U.P. and the fair investigation may not be expected from the police of U.P. In the present case the FIR has been lodged by the Officer Incharge of P.S. Amethi and a policeman had lost his life. Role of the U.P. police has always been in serious question, it has never been above board. The investigation by the police of State of U.P. pursuant to the FIR will be partial, partisan, improper and unfair. Therefore, the investigation of the above mentioned case may be transferred to C.B.I. in the interest of justice on justice dispensation system.

From the perusal of the FIR it borne out that:

a. prohibitory orders were issued under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the local administration;

b. apart from the Police from local Police Station, police force from various nearby police stations of district Amethi, the battalions of P.A.C, RAF as also Fire Brigade were deployed;

c. a mob of 250 to 300 people gathered outside the palace with lathi, danda, eint and paththar;

d. the mob did not diffuse despite warning by police regarding invocation of section 144 Cr.P.C. and resorted to violence by pelting stones followed by firing and throwing bomb at the policemen.

e. the Police tried to control the violent mob by resort to water cannon rubber bullets, tear gas, shelling and chilly bomb.

f. certain people from the mob opened fire upon the police personnel in which a police constable sustained gun shot injuries who later succumbed.

The some of the facts are unanswered as:

a. who and when informed the local Police about the plan of arrival of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Amita Modi in Amethi and their entry to palace.

b. why such information was not given to the petitioner and his mother if it was received by the police before hand, who were in occupation of the palace.

c. how the crowd of 250-300 people gathered in the morning itself on their own when there was no role of the petitioner in calling them.

d. who issued prohibitory orders by invoking section 144 Cr.P.C.

e. was the resort to section 144 CrPC was taken strictly as per requirement of law prescribed;

f. what was the material available with the concerned magistrate which furnished ground for invocation of section 144 CrPC.

g. was the notice/service of prohibitory order passed under section 144 CrPC ever given to the petitioner or any one else, if yes, the in what manner, at what time and date as required under section 144 read with section 134 CrPC.

h. who ordered for resort to water cannon tear gas shelling, chilly bomb on the part of police and under what circumstances;

I. was the police action required in the circumstances, if yes then in what circumstances and was it proportionate in the circumstances;

j. was the entire episode of police movement a part of nefarious design so that unruly melee be created and under the cover of the same the petitioner and his family members be got eliminated;

k. has the melee been video graphed by the local administration as is current trend when there is apprehension of possible meleee at some place, if yes, then what else has been shown and who order for such recording.

In view of many unanswered questions as well as police handling all the situations was not above board it deserves to be properly scrutinized by commission of the inquiry constituted by this Hon'ble Court to be headed by Hon'ble Judge of this court, retired or sitting. On the basis of the above mentioned FIR the local police is trying to arrest the petitioner. The life and personal liberty of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is in danger. The petitioner is innocent person, in case he is arrested, his life and career would get spoiled. A fair investigation is not expected from the police of U.P., to ensure the fair investigation it may be transferred to C.B.I. It is a case in which a commission of the judicial inquiry headed by a sitting or retired Hon'ble Judge of this court be constituted on which recommendation /report, the proper action may be taken against the guilty person including the local police and administration.

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the petitioner is an accused in the present case, he is named in the FIR, active role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is a case in which police personnel was shot dead. The provision of section 157 Cr.P.C. empowers the Officer-In-Charge of the police station concerned/investigating officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. In such circumstances, where the petitioner is named in the present case as an accused, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 including the investigating officer to restrain itself from arresting the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR dated 14.9.2014, cannot be issued.

So far as the second prayer, which has been sought by the petitioner, who is an accused in the present case, is concerned, it is settled proposition of law that the investigation may not be conducted at the choice of the accused and there is no valid reason to transfer the investigation of the present case to C.B.I., such prayer may be refused.

So far as the third prayer with regard to issue a direction for instituting a commission of Judicial Inquiry to be headed by an Hon'ble judge of this court, sitting or retired, there is no such controversy demanding a judicial enquiry, such prayer may also be refused.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the writ petition, it reveals that the petitioner is named as an accused in the FIR dated 14.9.2014 lodged by Sri Mohd. Hanif, the Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station Amethi, district Amethi in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 14.9.2014 at about 10.50 a.m. in the commission of the offence, active role has been attributed to the petitioner. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the presence of administrative and police officers who were deputed to maintain peace and harmony at the place of incident. In the said incident one police constable Vijay Pratap Mishra, has been shot dead and other administrative and police officials sustained injuries. At the time of lodging the FIR the deceased Constable Vijay Pratap Mishra was surviving, he was taken to the C.H.C. Amethi through an Ambulance to provide proper medical aid but unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries, after his death an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. has also been added. According to the FIR specific role of causing gun shot injury to the deceased Constable Vijay Pratap Mishra, has been attributed to the accused Sunil Bari, active role of instigation has been attributed to the petitioner. In the said incident public and private vehicles were also damaged. The officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned is empowered by the provision of section 157 Cr.P.C. to make the arrest of the petitioner being an accused. There is no reason to issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party nos. 1 to 4 including the investigating officer to restrain itself from arresting the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR dated 14.9.2014. Such prayer sought by the petitioner is hereby refused.

So far as the prayer with regard to transfer of the investigation of the above mentioned case to C.B.I. is concerned, it has been made by the petitioner, who is an accused in case crime no. 1120 of 2014. It is well settled proposition of law that investigation of a criminal case may not be conducted at the choice of the accused but fair investigation is a right of the complainant as well as the accused. There is no proper reason to say that fair investigation is not expected from a civil police of district Amethi. There is no good ground to issue any direction for transferring the above mentioned case to C.B.I.

So far as the third prayer sought by the petitioner for issuing a direction to institute a commission of judicial enquiry to be headed by an Hon'ble Judge of this court sitting or retired, is concerned, it is a criminal case in which specific allegation has been made in the FIR. There is no valid reason requiring judicial enquiry, such prayer having no substance, is refused.

In our considered opinion the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

Dt.23.09.2014

RPD/NA