Standard Chartered Bank vs Yogesh Sharma, Associate ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1653 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.

1. The appellant bank has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2005. The present litigation is a manifestation of strong arm tactics prevailing in India today with regard to the role of banks like the appellant and the method of recovery of dues. It seems that the normal remedy through process of law seems inappropriate to the appellant thereby using extra judicial methods for recovery of the dues. To say the least, if it is allowed to happen, people's faith in the rule of law will be shaken and more and more people will start using mafia power to achieve their objective. Whether it is a healthy sign for a growing economy like ours is a question which we have to answer in this appeal.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Counsel for the appellant bank has vehemently contended that the writ petition filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Employees' Union v. Union of India and Ors. 1997 SCC (Crl) 303 and has contended that the respondent was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation. To Somewhat similar effect he has also cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court Parivartan and Anr. v. MCD and Ors. 2006 (IV) AD (Delhi) 634 and has contended that if an FIR has been registered, then, the only remedy is to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and writ petition is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , wherein it was stated that when no action is taken by the police, the complainant has got power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition as writ petition was not maintainable. It was also contended by Mr. Sethi that the impugned order amounts to interference in the investigation and writ court should refrain from interfering in the investigation and for this proposition he has referred to Director CBI v. Niyamavedi . To the similar effect he has also cited M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Crl.) 628. It was also contended that it was not open to the writ court to direct and suggest a different course of investigation to the police.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the brother of respondent-Yogesh Sharma was Rakesh Sharma who had held credit cards from the appellant bank. He was a journalist. On 7.10.2004 a report regarding his missing from the house was lodged with the police. In the intervening night of 18th-19th October, 2004 he was found dead in Mumbai. After the report was registered with the police, the police wanted the respondent to find out from the bankers of the deceased about withdrawal of amount from the credit cards so as to identify the location from where the credit cards were used. When the respondent approached the appellant, the appellant showed their inability to help the respondent in the absence of any request from the police authorities. The respondent approached the police authorities land the police wrote to the appellant. The fax message sent by Head Constable Munender Singh to the appellant on 30.10.2004 is at page 166 of the paper-book. It fortifies the stand taken by the respondent. The same is as follows:

It is requested that Rakesh Sharma, s/o B.K. Sharma, R/o 245 Flat 2B Railway Colony Panchkuian Road, Delhi vide D.D. No. 17A has been reported missing since 10.10.04. Hence Rakesh Sharma's older brother Shri Yogesh Sharma should be provided help and all appropriate information by concerned bank and other institutions. You would be doing a kind act.

4. Mr. Nigam has also contended that this appeal is not maintainable as no substantive order had been passed by the learned Single Judge and only notice has been issued by the learned Single Judge.

5. The case of the respondent is that on receipt of the aforesaid communication from the police, the credit card was suspended. Be that as it may, what is important for this Court is to see as to whether in the facts and circumstance of the present case, the writ court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and passing the impugned order and in this regard a little background is necessary.

6. The respondent is an associate Professor with Jawahar Lal Nehru University. On the complaint of the respondent an FIR (No. 129/2005 dated 22.3.2005) was registered under Section 506 IPC which is at pages 52-54 of the paper-book. The same is as under :

Subject: Repeated threats and abuses by the Personnel of the Standard Chartered Bank (Indian Express Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg) to pay Credit Card dues owned by my brother Rakesh Sharma (a journalist) who died on 19.10.2004. Dear Sir, on 21st March 05 I was explicitly threatened with assault and grave injury to myself and my family, on phone, by the Standard Chartered personnel. They asked me if I prefer getting Fixed up at home or in the University or outside. The crudest forms of abuse continued for one hour (8.00 pm to 9.00 pm). To my remark that I will complain to the police they responded BAHAN CHOD POLICE HAMARI JEB MAIN REHTI HAI. This has been happening about once a week for the past 4/5 months but now it has crossed all limits. And all this is for some outstanding dues they claim my late brother Rakesh Sharma a journalist who died on 19.10.2004 (copy of Newspaper report enclosed) owed them on his Credit card. Initially they stated the amount was Rs. 10,000, but now with interest it has become Rs. 70,000/-. I have repeatedly told them to send all this to me but they have not done it. This threatening and abusing is done by three persons who identify themselves variously as Manoj Kumar Singh, Vikram Singh, Mukesh Kumar Dakash, Mahesh Sharma, Aashish Mehra etc. But they always state that they are from the 1st - 3rd floor, India Express Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. They usually phone after 8 p.m. My finding seems to indicate that their officer in charge is a person called Mr. Tushar Dhar and his Assistant Ms. Neha. They have declared that I have to pay my dead brother's outstanding and they have the judicial Magistrial authority to claim it from me. They ordered bring yours brother's death certificate or we will issue you your death certificate.

7. The writ petition was filed on 17.5.2005. The respondent also sent a representation to the Government of India indicating the unhelpful attitude of the bank. It was also complained that in the university two well-built young men were looking for him and two days after Diwali, 5/6 robust gentlemen woke up his aged parents at their home late at night saying they had come with Diwali gifts for the deceased and his family. At that time his mother informed them that her son had died and no presents were to be collected.

8. All these averments are reflected at pages 172-174 of the paper-book and the reply which was also received from the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Directorate of Public Grievances that they have forwarded me matter to the Joint Secretary, Banking Division is at page 175 of the paper-book. Letter was sent from one department of Government of India to another department without any relief to the respondent. We are mentioning these letters as in the impugned order notices have been issued by the learned Single Judge to the Reserve Bank of India as well as to the Department of Banking Division, Ministry of Finance.

9. We have given brief background of the facts of the present case to deal with the stand taken by the appellant which appears to be quite amazing.

10. When the notices were issued in the writ petition, the same were accepted on behalf of respondent No. 1-Commissioner of Police and respondent No. 4-Standard Chartered Bank. However, on the first day, the Court vide order dated 26.5.2005 directed for deletion of the names of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance respectively from the array of respondents and the matter was renotified on 25.7.2005. Status report was filed by Mohan Singh, SHO, Police Station Paharganj, New Delhi on 8.11.2005, which finds mention in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.11.2005, the same is at page 276 of the paper-book. As status report is important, the same is reproduced below:

During the cause of investigation the Management of the respondent No. 4 (i.e. the appellant before us) was requested to provide the names of their employees so that they are interrogated but he did not provide the same. However, with great persuation they revealed the name of one Tushar Dhar but they stated that he has already left the job and they-are not aware of his whereabouts. That with regard to the other persons mentioned in the complaint, it was stated that no person by the said names were employees of the bank.

It is respectfully submitted that the investigation is still in progress but the respondent No. 4 is not cooperating.

11. Respondent No. 4/appellant is before us. On the basis of the aforesaid report the learned Single Judge passed the order on 8.11.2005 to the following effect. The same is at page 278 of the paper-book:

The status report filed by the police in this case relating to intimidation of a peace loving citizen through obnoxious telephone calls made by staff members of a bank, to say the least, brings out a shocking state of affairs about the manner in which investigation of this case is being conducted by the police. The report shows helplessness of the police to get the requisite information from the senior officers of the bank, besides exhibiting the lack of sensitivity and seriousness on the part of the investigation officer. It shows that either senior police officers do not supervise the investigation of the criminal cases at all, or if they do, it is perfunctory.

The Commissioner of Police is directed to entrust the investigation of this case to an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police for further investigation. A status report shall be filed by the newly detailed investigating officer within four weeks duly forwarded by the concerned Joint Commissioner of Police. The Manager of respondent No. 4-Standard Chartered Bank credit Cards Division, 3rd Floor, Express Building, 9-10, Bahadur Zafar Marg, New Delhi-2, shall also appear on the next date of hearing.

12. This order has not been challenged by the appellant. During the course of arguments the stand taken by the appellant was that they have not authorised any collection agency. However, when they were confronted with the letter written by the appellant dated 1.7.2005, which at page 280 whereby they have terminated the collection agency agreement, the appellant took a somersault and stated that when they came to know about the high-handedness of the said collection agency their agreement was terminated.

13. In the present case the respondent, who is the brother of Shri Rakesh Sharma, a credit card holder of the appellant bank had to undergo lot of harassment and trauma and instead of rendering any sort of cooperation by the concerned officials of the appellant bank, the respondent was treated shabbily as per his allegation in the said FIR No. 129/2005. Due to Said atrocious conduct of the appellant, the respondent who is an Associate Professor of JNU had to approach the Government of India but of no help.

14. It is a matter of common knowledge that these banks and financial institutions first lure and solicit the people to take credit cards and various loans then with the same customers they adopt extra-legal methods with the help of recovery agents or through other coercive measures to effect recoveries.

15. We also express our strong disapproval to the practices being adopted by these banks including the appellant to recover their dues through illegitimate means. We strongly deprecate such methods on the part of these institutions. Banks and financial institutions have every right to recover their dues but they are not only expected but bound to take recourse to law of the land for recovery of their dues.

16. Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, the defense of the appellant does not inspire any confidence. Thereafter, in terms of the order passed on 8.11.2005 further investigation report was filed to the following effect :

As per directions of the Hon'ble High Court, investigation in FIR No. 129/05 Dated 22.03.05 Under Section 506 IPC PS. Pahar Ganj Delhi was taken up on 14.11.2005. Brief facts of the case are that one Sh. Yogesh Sharma, the complainant, reported to SHO PS, Pahar Ganj on 22.03.2005 that on 21.03.05, he was being explicitly threatened with assault and grave injury to him and his family members by Standard Chaptered Bank personnel on phone for the last 4/5 months for the recovery of outstanding dues on the Credit Card in the name of his late brother Rakesh Sharma, aged 55 years, a journalist by profession. It was also alleged that he is being asked to pay Rs. 70,000/- against initial outstanding amount of Rs. 10,000/-. He named bank officials posing as Manoj Kumar Singh Vikram Singh, Mukesh Kumar Daksh, Mahesh Sharma and Ashish Mehra etc. as the persons who were abusing and threatening him. One Shri Tushar Dhar and his Assistant Ms. Neha of Standard Chartered Bank were suspected by him as the in charge of these persons. It was also alleged that these persons had claimed that they were calling from 1st - 3rd floor Indian Express Building, BSZ Marg, New Delhi.

17. In view of these allegations, record of Standard Chartered Bank has been checked up. On screening the record it has surfaced that Shri Rakesh Sharma s/o Sh. B.K. Sharma r/o A/184, Surya Vihar, Ghaziabad, UP had obtained as many as 04 Credit Cards from Standard Chartered Bank. Details of these Credit Cards and outstanding amount against these Credit Cards on various dates are shown below.

Card Number

Total Credit Limit of all the four credit cards is Rs. 78,000 approx.

Date of Issue of Credit Card

Outstanding amount as on 19.10.04

Outstanding amount as on 01.03.05

Outstanding amount as on 30.10.05

4129038081003053

13.10.03

10804

14202

18960

9356500801033242

20.01.04

Approx. 64000

67820

89226

5543748086942908

17.09.96

Approx. 5419

5431862000274812

17.09.96

Incidentally, Sh. Rakesh Sharma expired on 19.10.2004 in Mumbai. Due to this sudden tragedy, Credit Card of Sh. Rakesh sharma became non operational. As a result thereof, outstanding amount against the Credit Cards of Sh. Rakesh Sharma started multiplying. The blank officials/allotted agencies started making vigorous efforts to recover the money from relatives of deceased cardholder and started contacting at their residential phone numbers for payment of outstanding amount.

During investigations it has surfaced that one Ritesh Dogra s/o Roshan Lal Dogra r/o B-2 First Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi a supervisor in M/s Sabharwal & Co. c/o 1E-16 and 1E-23 Jhandewalan Extension Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (a Collection agency then in agreement with Standard Chartered Bank) had given phone calls to the complainant Sh. Yogesh Sharma leading to heated arguments in abusive language/intimidating tones for outstanding amount of Sh. Rakesh Sharma. Sh. Ritesh Dogra s/o Roshan Lal Dogra r/o B-2 First Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi has been arrested on 7.12.05 in Case FIR No. 129/05 dated 22.3.05 Under Section 506 IPC PS Pahar Ganj. Section 387 IPC has been added in the case on the basis of facts collected during the course of investigation.

It is worth mentioning here that the officials of Standard Chartered Bank denied having referred the case of Shri Rakesh Sharma to any collecting agency including M/s S. Sabharwal & Co. However, the investigation revealed that the bank had in fact referred the case for collection/recovery to M/s S. Sabharwal & Co. Role of Bank officials of Standard Chartered Bank is under investigation. The investigation is in progress and further appropriate action shall be taken in due course.

18. It is in this background that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 9.12.2005, the same is at page 313-314 of the paper-book. The said order is to the following effect :

Status report of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi forwarded by the Joint Commissioner of Police stands filed. The report brings out that as a result of further investigation carried out in the matter, one Mr. Ritesh Dogra who is stated to be employed as a Supervisor in M/s S. Sabharwal and Co. (a Collection agency) hired by the-Standard Chartered bank had given phone calls to the complainant Sh. Yogesh Sharma leading to heated arguments in abusive language/intimidating tones for out standing amount of Sh. Rakesh Sharma. The said Ritesh Dogra has since been arrested. However, it is stated that the officials of Standard Chartered Bank denied having referred the case of Rakesh Sharma to any collecting agency including M/s S. Sabharwal and Co. but the investigation revealed that the bank had in fact referred the case for collection/recovery of dues against Rakesh Sharma to M/s S. Sabharwal and Co. and the role of the officials of the Standard Chartered bank is under investigation. It is also stated by the learned standing counsel for the State that the Bank had refused to divulge the particulars of the Collection agency engaged by them.

Mr. Deep Pal Singh, Regional Manager (North) Standard Chartered Bank is present and he pleads ignorance about any action/inaction alleged on the part of the concerned Branch Manager who was contacted by the Police. Let an affidavit of the concerned Manager/Officer be filed before the next date of hearing.

Further investigation shall be undertaken to find out the persons who are behind these illegal activities which have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens.

The petitioner in his wisdom had arrayed Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance, Secretary Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division as the parties in the present petition but vide order dated 26.5.2005, this Court directed the deletion of the said respondents from the array of the parties. This Court on a consideration of the matter and more particularly that the issues of public importance in regard to the rights of the citizens in the matter of repayment/recovery of loans are raised in the petition and one of the reliefs prayed is about formulating appropriate guidelines on the subject, deem it expedient in the interest of justice to have the views of Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance, Secretary Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division on the above aspect of the matter. Issue notice to the Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance, through Secretary Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division for the date fixed.

Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate, who happens to be present in the Court and who volunteers to assist the Court in the matter is requested to do so. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of the petition to Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate.

19. After giving the aforesaid backdrop of the facts of the present case, we will now examine the judgments as cited by the appellant in support of his arguments.

20. The Authority of M.C. Abraham and Anr. (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant. As in the said case the investigation was in progress and it was the statutory duties of the investigating agency to fully investigate the matter and then submit a report to the Magistrate concerned and it was for the Magistrate to proceed further and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the High Court issued a direction that case should not only be investigated but a chargesheet also must be submitted and taking into consideration such directions given by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate for the High Court to issue a direction that the case should not only be investigated but a chargesheet must also be submitted. In view of these peculiar facts, the Supreme Court has held that by giving such directions the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.

21. In the matter of All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (supra) relied upon by the appellant, the Delhi High Court on 14.5.1996 in Civil Writ petition No. 1940/1996 directed institution of proceedings against one Dr. S.K. Kakkar, former doctor of All India Institute of Medical Sciences for alleged cognizable offence under Section 409, IPC. The Division Bench of the High Court refused to issue mandamus to the police to investigate into the allegations made against the said doctor and the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI. It was not required to investigate into all or every offence and, therefore, High Court was justified in refusing to grant the relief as sought for. Similarly in Parivartan & Anr. (supra) the writ petition was filed seeking directions against the Commissioner of Police to register an FIR into the complaint of the petitioner and to get the matter investigated and the Court in para 6 of the said judgment held as under :

Hence, in our opinion, a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained merely because a person has a grievance that his FIR is not being registered, or that having been registered, a proper investigation is not being done by the police in that connection. In such cases the said person has an alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and this Court should not ordinarily entertain such writ petitions otherwise it will be flooded With such writ petitions and there will be no other work done by this Court except hearing such writ petitions. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy this Court under Article 226 should not ordinarily interfere.

22. In Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre's case (supra) Supreme Court relied on All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Employees' Union v. Union of India and Ors. 1997 SCC (Crl) 303 and in para 14 of the said case held that the writ applications were not the appropriate remedy without availing the remedy available and the appellant in that case could not have approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. In this case also the police has already filed a chargesheet.

23. It is in this backdrop that the learned Single Judge felt inclined to direct further investigation after finding that respondent No. 1 (appellant herein) was not cooperating in the investigation.

24. In all the aforesaid authorities nowhere the Supreme Court has debarred or put any fetters on the plenary powers of this Court while exercising its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation or further investigation in the matter if it is found that the police is either colluding or the accused persons are creating any sort of hindrance in conducting proper inquiry. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Supreme Court observed as under:

...Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution....

25. The procedure and rules under statute are enacted to further the course of justice. Influential, powerful people and other institutions particularly corporations in the modern day scenario want to have a regime of their own with regard to recovery proceedings de hors the municipal law. It was noticed in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court :

Even after this matter was brought to the Court complaining of the inertia of CBI and the other agencies to investigate into the offences because of the alleged involvement of several persons holding high offices in the executive, for quite some time the disinclination of the agencies to proceed with the investigation was apparent. The accusation, if true, revealed a nexus between high ranking politicians and bureaucrats who were alleged to have been funded by a source linked with the source funding the terrorists. In view of the funding also through foreign currency, some undesirable foreign elements appeared to be connected. This revealed a grave situation posing a serious threat even to the unity and integrity of the nation. The serious threat posed to the Indian polity could not he underscored. The obvious need for an expeditious and thorough probe which had already been delayed for several years could not but be countenanced. The continuing inertia of the agencies to even commence a proper investigation could not be tolerated any longer. In view of the persistence of that situation, it became necessary as the proceedings progressed to make some orders which would activate the CBI and the other agencies to at least commence a fruitful investigation. Merely issuance of a mandamus directing the agencies to perform their task would be futile and, therefore, it was decided to issue directions from time to time and keep the matter pending requiring the agencies to report the progress of investigation so that monitoring by the Court could ensure continuance of the investigation. It was therefore, decided to direct the CBI and other agencies to complete the investigation expeditiously, keeping the Court informed from time to time of the progress of the investigation so that the Court retained seisin of the matter till the investigation was completed and the chargesheets were filed in the competent Court for being dealt with, thereafter, in accordance with law.

26. Although the Supreme Court was dealing with Hawala case but if banking corporations operating in India are allowed to use extra-judicial mechanism for the purposes of recovering their dues that will de-generate the whole legal system and will bring down the people's faith in rule of law and if it is not checked in its infancy same would lead others to use such kind of measures totally eroding the concept of rule of law in this country.

27. However, the Supreme Court has circumscribed the power of the Court only where after investigation a charge-sheet is filed, the Court should not interfere thereafter it is so left for the Court in which the charge-sheet has been filed to deal with the matter exclusively. In Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. , Supreme Court observed :

This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been doubted in similar cases dealt with by this Court. It was made clear by this Court in the very first case, namely Vineet Narain v. Union of India that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We make this observation only to reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter may survive. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the High Court dealing primarily with this aspect cannot be sustained.

28. From the overall analysis of the authorities cited above, in our opinion, a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained merely on the ground that FIR is not being registered or if the same having registered a proper investigation is not being done by the police as an alternative remedy is prescribed for the complainant to Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the aforesaid cited authorities show that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the High Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in an appropriate case where on account of position of persons holding high offices as in the present case with enormous clout at their end and instead of investigation done by the police in a proper manner, there is apparent non-cooperation by the high officials of the appellant bank, causing obstructions in proper investigation. Therefore, in such circumstances the Court is not without power while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the police concerned to have proper investigation done but for the proper investigation the persons who have been alleged to have threatened the respondent, persons who have gone to the residence of the deceased's mother on Diwali day with sweets, the amounts which have been shown in the statement of the bank even after the death of the deceased cannot see the light of the day. All these aspects have to be investigated.

29. Therefore, judging from any angle in view of the appellant being a bank, which has enormous clout when a Head Constable was inquiring into the matter initially, he was not in a position to get any assistance from the bank. The status report filed by the SHO shows that the appellant was not cooperating in the investigation with regard to the names of their employees and other persons mentioned in the complaint. Another factor which we must take note of that when the first order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 8.11.2005 directing the Commissioner of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, no appeal was filed against the said order. It is only pursuant to the direction passed by this Court further investigation report was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police which has been reproduced above and subsequent order which was passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.12.2005 the appellant has chosen to approach this point so as to save the exposure in the investigation of their role in this whole sordid drama.

30. We see no merit in this appeal.

31. Dismissed.