Bharatiya Janata Party vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5839 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 749 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaram, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior

Counsel representing respondents No.1 to 5.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39767 of 2022 filed

by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge held that

investigation could not be stalled for an indefinite period and that

the Court was not inclined to continue further with the interim

order dated 29.10.2022 Accordingly, the police were permitted to

go ahead with the investigation. It is against this order that the

present appeal has been filed.

4. Appellant before us is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),

Telangana State Unit. It is stated that on 26.10.2022, a first ::2::

information was lodged by respondent No.8 alleging that

on 06.09.2022 two out of the three accused persons

viz., Ramachandra Bharati @ Satish Sharma and Nanda Kumar had

met the informant and started negotiations with him not to contest

as a candidate from the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) party;

instead he was asked to join BJP party by resigning from the TRS

party. In this connection, he stated that he was offered an amount

of Rs.100 crores besides certain contract works of the Central

Government. Informant alleged that if he did not do as per the

diktat of the accused persons, criminal cases would be foisted on

him besides raids by central agencies. It is in the above backdrop

that the first information was lodged before the Moinabad Police

Station on the basis of which Cr.No.455 of 2022 came to be

registered under Sections 120-B, 171-B, 171-E, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as under

Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. According to the appellant the entire episode was stage

managed with the sole objective of defaming appellant political ::3::

party. Repeatedly the name of appellant political party was

mentioned in the first information. However, it has been clarified

that appellant is in no way connected with the accused persons who

are neither members of the appellant political party nor are

associated with it in any manner.

6. In the above backdrop, the related writ petition came to be

filed contending that Cr.No.455 of 2022 registered with the

Moinabad Police Station should be entrusted to a Special

Investigation Team (SIT) for a free and fair investigation.

7. Learned Single Judge passed an order dated 29.10.2022.

From a perusal of the order dated 29.10.2022, we find that State

had raised objection as to the locus standi of the appellant to institute

the writ petition. However, learned Single Judge was of the view

that State should file a detailed counter-affidavit and till such

counter-affidavit was filed, further investigation in Cr.No.455 of

2022 of Moinabad Police Station was deferred.

::4::

8. After the State filed the counter-affidavit to which appellant

filed rejoinder, the matter was again taken up by the learned Single

Judge. In the meanwhile another writ petition being W.P.No.40733

of 2022 came to be filed by the three accused persons seeking

investigation in Cr.No.455 of 2022 by a SIT or by the Central

Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Both the writ petitions were taken

up together. Learned Single Judge observed that it was too early

for the Court to reach any prima facie opinion that action of the

State Police is tainted with mala fides and aimed only to target the

appellant. While the crime was registered on 26.10.2022 appellant

filed the writ petition on the very next day i.e., on 27.10.2022.

Deferment of investigation order was passed on 29.10.2022. While

keeping the writ petitions pending, as according to the learned

Single Judge larger issues of public importance are involved for

which a detailed hearing is required, the embargo on investigation

was lifted whereafter respondent Police were allowed to go ahead

with the investigation vide the order dated 08.11.2022.

::5::

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has taken us

minutely to the first information and submits that the allegations

contained therein are only towards the appellant party. Therefore

appellant cannot be construed as a stranger to the entire

proceeding. However, this aspect would be gone into during the

final hearing of the writ petition. Referring to and relying upon the

Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of

West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic

Rights, West Bengal1, he submits that this Court has the power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to transfer

investigation to an independent agency inasmuch as impartiality of

the State Police does not inspire confidence in the appellant. He

submits that it is the limited prayer of the appellant that the writ

petition may be heard as early as possible and during the interregnum,

the initial interim order passed on 29.10.2022 deferring

investigation may be continued.

(2010) 3 SCC 571 ::6::

10. Opposing such submission, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned

Senior Counsel representing the State has at the outset pointed out

that there is no such interim prayer in the writ affidavit to stay

investigation. Infact as per the prayer of the appellant itself in the

writ petition, respondents be directed to constitute a SIT to

investigate Crime No.455 of 2022. Therefore, stalling of

investigation does not arise.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to a decision of the

Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.

State of Maharashtra2, more particularly to the conclusions

rendered in paragraph 80 thereof, and submits that after analysing

the law laid down by the Court for the last 70 odd years Supreme

Court has concluded that police has the statutory right and duty

under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (Cr.P.C.) particularly in Chapter XIV thereof, to investigate

into a cognizable offence; Courts would not thwart any

investigation into a cognizable offence; criminal proceedings ought

not to be scuttled at the initial stage. He also pointed out from the

2021 SCC Online SC 315 ::7::

decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjai Tiwari v. State of Uttar

Pradesh3 that a third party like the appellant has no locus to

approach the Court either for quashing of a criminal complaint or

seeking transfer of investigation. He has also referred to a decision

of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.4 on

the point that against an interlocutory order, writ appeal would not

ordinarily be entertained when the learned Single Judge has

exercised his discretion in a judicious manner. He submits that the

deferment order was passed by the learned Single Judge on

29.10.2022 whereafter, counter-affidavit was filed by the State.

After hearing the parties and considering the rival pleadings,

learned Single Judge passed the impugned order which is just and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that

insofar grievance of the appellant that its image is being tarnished

by being named in the first information, it may avail its remedy as

is permissible in law but certainly the intra-court appeal is not

maintainable and should be dismissed.

2020 SCC Online SC 1027

1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727 ::8::

12. In his reply submission Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaram,

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that decisions

relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents are not

at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch

as those decisions were rendered when the prayer made was for

quashing of first information/criminal complaint. In the present

case, appellant has not sought for quashing of the complaint. All

that the appellant seeks is for a fair investigation and till the issue is

decided by the learned Single Judge the State Police should stay its

hands off. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant has referred to certain materials on record, such as, the

observation panchanama at page 81 of the paper book to contend

that while the seizure proceedings had commenced on 26.10.2022

at 12:30 hours and had concluded at 14:30 hours on the same day,

the mediators had put their signature on 27.10.2022 as opposed to

26.10.2022 put by the officials, a vital discrepancy which strikes at

the very credibility of the investigation being carried out.

::9::

13. In the course of the hearing the Bench informed learned

counsel that certain materials were received by the office of the

Chief Justice from the President of the TRS party. Learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant informed that similar materials have been

dispatched to various other constitutional authorities.

14. When a query was made to Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned

Senior Counsel for the State on this aspect, he expressed his sincere

regret and submitted that this should not have happened.

15. Towards the end of the hearing, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned

Senior Counsel for the State has placed before us a copy of

G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 09.11.2022 issued by the Principal Secretary

to the Government of Telangana, Home (Legal) Department

constituting a Special Investigation Team headed by Sri C.V.Anand,

IPS, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City to investigate

Cr.No.455 of 2022 registered before the Moinabad Police Station.

16. We also put a query to learned counsel for the parties as to

whether the proceedings should be continued before the learned ::10::

Single Judge or should be brought before DB-I. Though learned

counsel for the appellant agreed with the above query,

Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the State however

pointed out that this may lead to unwarranted objection at a later

stage. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the learned

Single Judge to continue the proceedings.

17. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have

received the due consideration of the Court. We have also perused

the materials on record and gone through the decisions cited at the

bar.

18. The appeal before us is within a very narrow compass. We

have already seen that on 29.10.2022, learned Single Judge had

deferred further investigation in Cr.No.455 of 2022 registered with

Moinabad Police Station until counter-affidavit was filed by the

State. After the counter-affidavit was filed and after hearing

learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge was not

inclined to continue further with the interim order

dated 29.10.2022 and accordingly, did not extend the same vide the ::11::

order dated 08.11.2022. Respondent Police were permitted to go

ahead with the investigation.

19. Considering the fact that the case has serious political

ramifications, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of

all concerned if the investigation is done in a fair and professional

manner; insulated from political allegations and counter llegations.

As already noted above, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has

been constituted which is headed by Sri C.V.Anand, IPS., who is

presently the Commissioner of Police of Hyderabad City.

Sri C.V.Anand, I.P.S., is a senior police officer of the State. The

other members of the SIT are as follows:

i. Smt. Rama Rajeshwari, IPS, SP, Nalgonda. ii. Sri Kalmeshwar Shingenavar, IPS, DCP, Crimes, Cyberabad iii. Sri R.Jagadishwar Reddy, DCP, Shamshabad, Cyberabad iv. Sri N.Venkateshwarlu, SP, Narayanpet, v. Sri B.Gangadhar, ACP, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad vi. Sri Laxmi Reddy, SHO, Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad.

20. While in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, that too at the appellate stage assailing an interlocutory

order, it may not be proper for the writ appellate court to stall the ::12::

investigation in a crime of this nature, more particularly when

appellant itself insists on a fair investigation by a SIT, we are of the

view that the following directions would sub-serve the cause of

justice.

21. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:

i. Since a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been

constituted as above, it shall proceed with the investigation in

Crime No.455 of 2022 of Moinabad Police Station;

ii. SIT shall submit its first report in sealed cover before the

learned Single Judge about the progress of investigation on

29.11.2022;

iii. SIT shall not disclose the progress or divulge the details of

investigation before any authority as well as the media;

iv. There shall be no selective leakage of investigation or

materials gathered during investigation; it is the responsibility of

the Chairman of the SIT- Sri C.V.Anand, IPS, to ensure that the

same is scrupulously followed;

::13::

v. Insofar investigation into Crime No.455 of 2022 is

concerned, SIT shall not report before any authority, be it political

or executive;

vi. There shall not be any interference by any authority in the

investigation by the SIT in Crime No.455 of 2022 and if any

permissions are required to proceed further with the investigation,

SIT would be at liberty to make suitable application before the

learned Single Judge;

vii. Learned Single Judge shall monitor the investigation and

on the basis of materials including progress of investigation to be

submitted before him in sealed cover by the SIT from time to time,

as may be directed, may pass such order as may be deemed fit and

proper; and

viii. List the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge

on 29.11.2022.

22. With the above directions, writ appeal is disposed of. No

costs.

::14::

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 15.11.2022 LUR