Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Singh Srinet vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2525 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh Srinet
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Prakash
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to consider the representation dated 22.02.2021 as well as the documents/evidences provided by the petitioner, according to Para-107 of U.P. Police Regulation and proceed further with the investigation of Case Crime No. 0510 of 2019 under Section 13 (1)(b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to complete and conclude the re-inquiry initiated vide order dated 11.07.2019 passed by respondent no.1 within stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Investigating Officer is not considering the representation dated 22.02.2021 and the documents and evidences provided by the petitioner which is causing prejudice to him and as such he has approached this Court with the prayers as aforesaid. It is argued that non consideration of the representation and documents and evidences as provided by the petitioner would clearly prejudice the petitioner in spite of the order dated 11.07.2019 of the State Government. It is argued that the Investigating Officer is under a bounden duty as per para 107 of the U.P. Police Regulation to consider the same and investigate it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon annexure 7 to the writ petition being orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court by which a direction has been issued to the Investigating Officer to consider the documents of the petitioner therein.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary and others : 2014 2 SCC 532 and Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others : 2010 Law Suit (SC) 565 buttress his submission and has argued that the prayer as prayed be granted and appropriate direction be issued.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the present writ petition and argued that the petitioner is an accused in a case. It is argued that the investigation is being carried on in a fair and proper manner and passing any direction as prayed for may amount to direct the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in a particular manner. It is argued that the prayers as prayed are wholly misconceived and the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an accused and is involved in a case in which the investigation is in progress. Directing the Investigating Officer to consider certain aspects or certain documents would be directing the investigation in a particular manner. The Investigating Agency as per the settled principles of law is free to investigate the matter as they choose but in a fair and an impartial manner. Passing any directions for considering any specific document or explanation would be interfering in the investigation.
This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not propose to pass any direction to the Investigating Agency for proceeding with the investigation in a specific manner.
The present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
M. ARIF
