HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Date of Judgment reserved: 28.02.2017
Date of delivery of Judgment: 21.04.2017
Court No. – 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 11695 of 2016
Petitioner :- Abha Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Shukla
Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon’ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Krishna Pratap Singh, J.)
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Photo stat copy of the order dated 02.03.2016 of D. G. Complaint, Varanasi passed on the application of one of the accused Aditya Singh and order dated 08.03.2016 of S.S.P. Varanasi, which are also on record.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. and material brought on record.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by by the petitioner with the following prayers:
(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ or certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by D.G-Complain Section, vide letter no.”DG-COMPLAIN SECTION-14/2016 dated 2.3.2016 passed on the application of one of the accused Aditya Singh Respondent no.7 (appears to be wrongly mentioned in prayer clause as respondent No.4) in Case Crime No.213/2015, under Sections 143, 504, 506, 354, 387, 376 and 307 of I.P.C. Police Station Lanka District Varanasi, ordering the further investigation of the case by Crime Branch Varanasi, transferring from the Police Station-Lanka, Varanasi, otherwise the humble applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, by calling the records of impugned order passed by respondent nos.2 and which is not served to the petitioner.
(ii) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased o issue writ or mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to arrest the known absconding accused of the case crime no.213 of 2015 Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.
(iii) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to arrest the 5 shooters hired by the accused Kamaldev Singh, those who have been arrested at Mirzapur, in the case crime no.213 of 2015, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.
(iv) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide the police protection and security as provided to them and
(v) or, to pass any such other and further order, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. A letter dated 02.03.2016 written by Director General of Police U.P. which is challenged in this petition is as under:
“HEADQUARTERS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, UTTAR PRADESH
1, Tilak Marg, Lucknow-1
Letter No. DG-Shi.Pra.-14/2016 Dated: March 2, 2016
Senior Superintendent of Police
1. As per the order of Additional Director General of Police, Law Order, Uttar Pradesh passed on the application of the applicant Shri Adiyta Singh, S/o Kamal Dev Singh, R/o Village Damanpura, PS Raghunath Pur, District Siwan, Bihar related to PS Lanka, District Varanasi, the matter was ensured by the headquarters to be investigated.
2. The applicant has mainly alleged that by adding Sections 307 376 of IPC in case crime no. 213/15 registered u/s 343, 504, 506, 354, 307 of IPC, he and his family members have been falsely implicated. Despite Mathura, Jaipur, Damanpura, PS Raghunath Pur, Siwan, Bihar being the places of occurrences, the case was investigated by the Varanasi police from PS Lanka, and his father was challenged u/s 376 of IPC in spite of the fact that the places of occurrence were not within its jurisdiction. It was requested that the investigation of the said case may kindly be entrusted to any other officer.
3. In the matter, during investigation, it was found by the headquarters that the applicant Shri Aditya Singh is a native of Siwan, Bihar. In the year 2010, the applicant had taken admissions in JRS Coaching and Sunbeam School, Lahartara, Varanasi. In the meantime, he came to be frequenting the place of his relative Vijay Pratap Singh, R/o Ekta Nagar Colony, Phase-2, Jalali Patti, Manduadih, Varanasi. Whenever the applicant’s sister Kumari Abha Singh, aged 22 years visited to meet his brother, she used to stay at Vijay Pratap Singh’s place. In the meantime, Kumari Abha Singh came to be in love with Vijay Pratap Singh, aged 46 years. Her parents had no information on this count. In the year 2014, when applicant’s father Kamal Dev Singh started to fix Kumari Abha’s marriage with a person namely Ravi Kant, she refused it. Abha Singh was pursuing MBA at Biyani Girls College, Jaipur and during this span of time, she, without informing her parents and family, married the aforesaid Vijay Pratap Singh on 07.05.2014 in an Arya Samaj Mandir at Jaipur. After completion of MBA, when her father Kamal Dev Singh went to Jaipur to bring her back, Abha Singh, while disclosing her marriage, refused to go with him. Kamal Dev Singh took her back home by saying that he would marry her off to Vijay Pratap Singh performing social customs at home but Abha Singh’s marriage with Vijay Pratap Singh, a man twice her age was opposed.
4. During investigation, it was found that the applicant’s parents wished to fix her marriage with another person Rana Pratap Singh and ceremony of ‘Muh Dikhai’ was also performed. After settlement of this marriage, all the preparations were being done but on being insisted by Abha Singh to go with Vijay Pratap Singh, she was locked in a room and restricted from meeting anybody, and she was beaten on calling Vijay Pratap’s name. On getting to know about the said thing, Vijay Pratap Singh had on 03.07.2014 by filing an application before the Women Commission, Patna, Bihar alleged that the father of fher wife had forcefully confined her, had been beating her and had not allowing her to go with him. On this, the Superintendent of Police, Siwan on being directed by the State Women Commission on 04.07.2014 to produce Abha Singh and her father Kamal Dev Singh, both were produced before the commission. Before the commission, it was alleged by Abha Singh that her father and family members wanted to marry her off to some other person and they would beat and harass her. She wanted to go with her husband Vijay Pratap Singh to his home because she had married him. Before the commission, applicant’s father Kamal Dev Singh admitted that they were not happy with this mismatched marriage; hence they were not allowing her to meet him and they had beaten her when she insisted to follow her fancy. Now, his family would not keep any relation with her and she could go wherever she wanted. They had no objection. On this, the commission passed an order that Abha Singh could go with Vijay Pratap Singh and she went with him.
5. During investigation, it was found that applicant’s father was very displeased and felt offended with the mismatched marriage of her daughter Abha Singh. Hence, in order to take revenge from Vijay Pratap Singh, he obtained copies of his passport and academic documents wherein the passport bore his date of birth to be 11.07.1975 whereas the character certificate bore it to be 14.04.1971. His name in the passport was Vijay Pratap Singh and in the character certificate it was Vijay Kumar Singh. A complaint on this count was made to the Passport Office, Lucknow and Varanasi Police by the applicant’s father and he started pairvi for legal action. It also came to the knowledge that an education loan of Rs. 2.70 was taken by applicant’s father for her daughter’s MBA course wherein he being the guarantor caused a notice to be issued against Abha Singh from the bank for non-payment of any EMI by her.
6. It was found that on 29.05.2015, a case crime no. 213/15 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 was lodged by Abha Singh at PS Lanka against her father Kamal Dev Singh, mother Shakuntala Devi, brother Aditya Singh (the applicant), neighbour Mahesh Kumar, Prasann Singh and 4-5 other persons whose names and addresses were unknown. In was recorded in the FIR of the said case that the said persons were trying to murder her husband and that her former neighbour Mahesh Kumar was aiding them. On 28.05.2015 at around 7 o’clock, they came to her residence and 4-5 persons were sitting in the vehicle. Her mother Shakuntala Devi wrote her address in the visitor register. She was telephoned and called downstairs and told that incomplete sentence. Today, we had come with preparation. We would return only after murdering both of you. On telephoning PS Lanka, her father, mother and 4-5 other persons ran away sitting in the car. An allegation was also levelled on her father for indecent behaviour with her from the last one year. The investigation of the said case was taken over by Shri Ram Darab Yadav, Sub-inspector.
7. During investigation, it was found that the complainant Abha Singh had also stated about firing in her statement recorded by the investigating officer. On 28.06.2015, the investigating officer recorded statement of Guard Bablu, as also of the Guard Ram Kumar who was present at the spot and of Vijay Pratap Singh and Section 307 was added in the case. On 05.07.2015, Kamal Dev Singh was arrested from Bihar by the investigating officer, brought to Varanasi on transit remand and produced before the court on 06.07.2015. On 08.08.2015, further statement of Abha Singh was recorded by the investigating officer wherein allegations were levelled by her against her father Kamal Dev Singh for molesting her in the year 2010 a few years prior to her admission in ADKM College, Mathura; for raping her in the year 2010 at her home at Village Damanpura and for touching her private parts on 13.03.2014 at Varanasi when she went to her husband’s home and for raping her from 24.06.2014 to 30.06.2014. A written statement was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by the complainant Abha Singh through registered post and it was prayed that her statement may kindly be recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of this application, Section 376 IPC was added by the investigating officer. During investigation, Prashant Singh was on 23.08.2015 challenged by the investigating officer and statement of the complainant Abha Singh was on 23.09.2015 recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, a charge-sheet against Kamal Dev Singh and Prashant @ Prasan Singh was filed before the court. On 13.11.2015, non-bailable warrants were obtained for the rest of the named Mahesh Kumar, Aditya Singh and Shakuntala Devi, and on 22.01.2016, an application u/s 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the court.
8. During investigation, it was found that whatever allegations were levelled by Abha Singh were levelled post her marriage. A copy of the statement of Abha Singh given before the State Women Commission, Patna Bihar was made available by the applicant wherein she had put allegation on her father for beating her but no allegations as to molestation and rape were levelled. A diary of Abha Singh was made available by the applicant wherein during the course of MBA she had written about her parents and brother, “My sweet and cute father and mother and sweet family, always miss you…..”, which prima facie goes to establish that allegations were levelled by the complainant Abha Singh for the said molestation and rape on account of displeasure over mere opposition to her marriage with Vijay Pratap Singh.
9. During investigation, the applicant Aditya Singh had produced a certificate issued by his college namely Neel Ratan Sirkar Medical College, Calcutta, which mentions that on 28.05.2015 on the day of the incident, he was present in the college. Indu Singh, sister of the applicant, who lives in Bangkok, had in her statement given through her mobile no. +66954677455 and e-mail stated that her father was a good man. They had a joint family. Denying the allegations levelled against her father, she stated that had there been any such incident, Abha Singh must have disclosed it before the Women Commission.
10. On inquiry, It was found that the CCTV footage of the occurrence on 28.05.2015 mentioned in the FIR was not taken immediately by the Investigating Officer Shri Ram Darash Yadav, SI; rather, the CCTV footage was tried to be retrieved after 03 months when it was deleted. If timely efforts for the same had been taken, the reality of the occurrence might have come into knowledge and the complainant might not have the opportunity to give a coloured version to the occurrence. Abha Singh had made allegation for the rape and the occurrence site thereof is stated to be Bihar, Mathura, Jaipur. However, section 376 IPC has been added to the said case by the Investigating Officer.
11. During the inquiry, on perusal of the CDR of the mobile numbers of Abha Singh’s parents 9931697714 and 9973554889 made available by her, their location on the day of occurrence 28.05.2015 was found to be at Lanka, district Varanasi. From this whole inquiry, the investigative proceeding initiated by the Investigating Officer has been found to be one sided. The factum of there being strain and tension over the said matter between both the parties has come into light.
12. In view of the facts having come into the light in course of the inquiry, the following actions have been directed by Additional Director of Police, UP to be taken:-
I. In the instant case, further investigation in connection with the registered Case Case Crime No. 213/15 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 IPC at the police station Lanka, Varanasi u/s 173(8) CrPC be thoroughly conducted by the Crime Branch, Varanasi under the close supervision of Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime).
II. A preliminary investigation be held against the Investigation Officer Sub Inspector Shri Ram Darash Yadav with respect to negligence shown in the investigation of the said offence and further proceeding be taken accordingly.
III. Keeping in the mind the tense situation in the instant matter, a careful watch on the activities of the both the parties be had by the local police.
13. Hence, please ensure action as mentioned above and submit action taken report in the matter to the Headquarters at the earliest.
(Mutha Ashok Jain) Inspector General of Police Public Grievances Uttar Pradesh”
5. In compliance of letter written by the D.G. Complaint, letter written by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi dated 08.03.2016 is given as under:
“Sh. Tribhuwan Singh Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime, Varanasi
1. Please peruse the photocopy of the letter no: DG – 14/2016, dated 02.03.2016 from the Inspector General of Police, Public Grievances, Headquarters of the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow enclosed with this letter, whereupon, in compliance of the order of the Addl. Director General, Law and Order, U.P., matter related to P.S. Lanka, Varanasi has been examined in connection with the application of applicant Sh. Aditya Singh s/o Kamaldev Singh, r/o village Damanpura, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Siwan, Bihar; and during investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, proceeding of case no. 213/2015 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 IPC has been found to be one sided. In the light of aforesaid facts revealed after the enquiry, the following actions have been directed by the Addl. Director General of Police to be taken:-
(1) Further investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in connection with case no. 213/2015 u/s 143/ 504/ 506/ 354/ 387 IPC registered at P.S. Lanka in the matter be thoroughly held by the Crime Branch, Varanasi under the close supervision of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime).
(2) A preliminary enquiry be conducted against the Investigating Officer S.I. Sh. Ram Daras Yadav for the negligence on his part and action be taken accordingly.
(3) In view of tension in the matter, a careful watch be kept by the local police over the activities of both the parties.
2. You are, therefore, directed that consequent upon the aforesaid directions issued by the Inspector General of Police, Public Grievances, Headquarters of Director General, U.P., Lucknow, investigation of the matter in question be ensured to be conducted under your close supervision and a preliminary enquiry be held against the Investigating Officer for the negligence on his part, following which ensure to make available, within 07 days, enquiry report to the office of the Head Clerk and a copy thereof to this office as well.
Encl: As above. No. CST/ RTP-222/2016 Senior Superintendent of Police Dated: March 08, 2016 Varanasi
Copy to: The Head Clerk, Police Office, Varanasi with a direction to open a file under the title ‘Preliminary Enquiry’, to obtain Preliminary Enquiry report from the enquiry officer within stipulated period and place the same before the undersigned followed by submission of the report to the concerned.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the D.G. Complaint erred in passing the order dated 02.03.2016 as a Police has no right of fresh investigation or re-investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the Police has filed charge sheet against two accused, namely, respondent No.4 Kamaldev Singh and respondent No.6 Prashant @ Prassan. It was next submitted that on 13.11.2015 non-bailable warrants were obtained for the rest of accused, namely respondent No.5 Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad @ Mahesh Bind, respondent No.7 Aditya Kumar and respondent No.8 Shakuntala Devi and on 22.01.2016, an application under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner (victim) is the prosecution witness no.1 in Sessions Trial No.478 of 2015 in the case of State Vs. Kamaldev Singh and others pending before the Fast Track Court, Varanasi. The statement of P.W.1, who is victim and petitioner has been recorded on 15.09.2016, 31.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 12.01.2017 and 21.01.2017. In these circumstances the order passed by the D.G Complaint is liable to be quashed.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to 8 submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 02.03.2016. It is further submitted that the police has right of further investigation under Section 173 (8) of code of criminal procedure, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. A perusal of record shows that police has submitted the charge sheet against the respondent No.4 Kamaldev Singh, respondent No.6 Prashant @ Prassan in Criminal Case No.213 of 2015 under Sections 143, 504, 506, 354, 387 IPC registered at Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. By the order in question dated 02.03.2016, the D.G. Complaint has passed order for further investigation of the case. The only question, which is to be decided here is that even after completion of investigation under Section 173 (2) of code of Criminal Procedure, Police has right to further investigate the case under Section 173 (8) code criminal procedure. It is well settled that even after completion of investigation under Section 173 (2) of the code, Police has right to further investigation of the case under Section 173 (8) of the code, but not fresh investigation or re-investigation. The submission of the report under Section 173 (2) of the Code does not preclude further investigation in a crime by the investigating agency, if there is necessity and valid ground for the further investigation is exist, further investigation is not ruled out merely because it may delay the trial as ultimately object is to arrive at the truth. A perusal of record shows that accused, respondent No.4 Kamaldev Singh and his son respondent No.6 Prashant @ Prassan are facing trial and the statement of the victim, petitioner has been recorded by the trial court. The Section 173 (8) of the Code is based on necessity to confer express power on the Police to make further investigation and submit supplementary reports wherever fresh facts occur to the Police resulting in further investigation, it is the duty of the police to send a supplementary report based on such materials to the competent court and this statutory duty cannot be lightly dealt with. The power of the investigating agency to investigate and submit further report is recognized by this provision. A second report cannot be filed without further investigation and without obtaining further evidence.
10. In the case of K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2001 in para Nos.24 and 25 of the judgment of the Apex Court has observed as under:
“24. Since, in the present case, unlike that of Kazi Lhendup Dorji (supra), the consent was withdrawn after report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. was filed on completion of investigation as the State Government would like to further investigate into the case, the question which still remains to be answered is whether this distinguishing fact alters the principle laid down therein. To answer this question it will be necessary to refer to Section 173 of the Code which, so far as it is relevant for our present purposes, reads as under:-
” Report of Police Officer on completion of investigation. – (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating –
(a) the names of the parties,
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and , if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government , the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) xxx xxx xxx
(7) xxx xxx xxx
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge if the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or report as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).”
“25. From a plain reading of the above Section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub- section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right of ‘further’ investigation under sub-section 08) but not “fresh investigation’ or ‘re-investigation’. That the Government of Kerala was also conscious of this position is evident from the fact that though initially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their notification dated June 27, 1996 (quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in public interest to order a ‘re-investigation’ of the case by a special team of State police officers, in the amendatory notification quoted earlier it made it clear that they wanted a ‘further investigation of the case’ instead of ‘re-investigation of the case’. The dictionary meaning of ‘further’ (when used as an adjective) is ‘additional’; more; supplemental. ‘Further’ investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab-initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a ‘further’ report or reports – and not fresh report or reports- regarding the ‘further’ evidence obtained during such investigation. Once it is accepted – and it has got to be accepted in view of the judgment in Kazi Lhendup Dorji (supra) – that an Investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and that ‘further investigation’ is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report under sub-section (8) of Section 173, it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in the instant case would not entitle the State Police, to further investigate into the case. To put it differently, if any further investigation is to be made it is the C.B.I. alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government. Resultantly, the notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and unsustainable in law. In view of this finding of ours we need not go into the questions, whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and whether consent given for investigating into Crime No. 246/94 was redundant in view of the general consent earlier given by the State of Kerala.”
11. In the case of Union of India vs. W.N. Chadda 1993 Supplementary (4) Supreme court Cases 260 wherein at para 92, it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that,
“92 More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the code….”
12. From the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is evident that even after submission of charge sheets under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C., the Police has right of further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., but police has no right of fresh investigation or re-investigation. In the present case, the charge sheet against the accused persons, namely, respondent No.4 Kamaldev Singh and respondent No.6 Prashant @ Prassan was submitted by the Police and they are facing trial. Thereafter the D. G. Complaint by the order dated 02.03.2006 has directed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. Investigation against the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 namely Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad @ Mahesh Bind, Aditya Kumar and Shakuntala Devi is still pending. The facts mentioned in order dated 02.03.2016, show that in garb of provisions of under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Police wants fresh investigation and re-investigation in the matter, which is not permissible under law against the respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Police has not been filed report against respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 namely, Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad @ Mahesh Bind, Aditya Kumar and Shakuntala Devi under Sections 173 (2) Cr.P.C. so Police can investigate the matter against the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 but police has no right of fresh investigation or re-investigation against the respondent Nos.4 and 6. The charge sheet has been submitted by the Police against the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and trial is commencing. But it is made clear that if any relevant document or evidence collected by investigating officer against the respondent Nos.4 and 6 is not produced at the time of submitting the charge sheet, same can be produced later on with the permission of the court after the submission of charge sheet as further investigation is not precluded. As to the concerned respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8, Police has right of investigation against them.
13. In view of the findings discussed, we do not find any good ground to quash the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the D.G. Complaint. Therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 is hereby refused.
14. However, considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we direct the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation against the respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 within 30 days from the production of certified copy of this order before him and submit a report to the competent court in accordance with law.
15. The S.P. Crime Branch, Varanasi shall ensure the compliance of the present order within the aforesaid period.
16. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :-21.04.2017