SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pramod Kumar vs Govt Of India on 6 April, 2017

{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

D.B.:Hon’ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal
Hon’ble Shri Virender Singh, JJ.

Writ Petition No.6554/2015


Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, AAG with Shri Y. Mittal, Govt. Adv. for
respondents No.2 to 5.
Shri Deepak Rawal, ASG for respondent No.1.


(Passed on this 6th day of April, 2017)

Per P.K. Jaiswal, J:-

This public interest litigation has been filed
by the petitioner, seeking relief of registration of FIR
against the police, involved in the incident happened in
the police station Vijay Nagar, Indore (ie., quarrel
between Police and Army Personnel at parking area of
BCM Heights Vijay Nagar Indore) be ensured. In the
petition, the petitioner has also prayed that liquor shop
be also closed at an early time, but he is pressing a
relief for registration of FIR, criminal case against the
police personnel involved in the incident happened on
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

the intervening night on 9.9.2015 and 10.9.2015.

2. The facts of the case are as under :-

(i) On 9.9.2015 at about 12.00 to 12.30, mid-
night some officers of the army visited the Woodstock
Lounge, situated at BCM Heights, Indore. While the
officers were in the parking area of BCM Heights and
were leaving for Mhow, 4-5 police persons arrived and
asked the officers to leave immediately, on which the
officers informed the police persons that, they were
waiting for their colleagues who were clearing their bill
and will soon leave. The police persons used abusive
language and passed derogatory remarks, resulting in
an argument. Within no time a PCR Van arrived at the
spot and was joined by Mr. Vipul Shrivastava, IPS and
other police officers.

(ii) The army officers identified themselves and
informed the police officers about the behavior of
police persons. Rather than taking action against the
erring police persons, large number of police persons
under the supervision of Mr. Vipul Shrivastava, brutally
assaulted the army officers with sticks and weapons.
The army officers were mercilessly beaten even when
they identified themselves as army officers. Thereafter,
the army officers were forcibly dragged to Vijay Nagar
police station where they were again beaten up by Mr.
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

Vipul Shrivastava, Police Inspector Mr. Saiyed and
Police Inspector Mr. Chhatarpalsingh Solanki. At about
0100 hrs., after inflicting several injuries the army
officers were left who somehow reached Mhow with
broken limbs, fractures, multiple contusions and
injuries caused by blunt objects. The injured army
officers were rushed to Military Hospital Mhow where 3
of them had to be admitted in the ICU. The nature of
injuries was such that 2 of them had to be referred to
the Command Hospital at Lucknow.

(iii) As per medical documents (Annexure R/1)
Army No.IC-78793A Lieutenant Shailendra Kumar,
sustained the following injuries :-

“(i) Contusion over left leg (8 x 4 cm)

(ii) Bruise on (RT) leg (6 x 5 cm)
fracture (Rt) Tibia (upper 1/3rd) ”

Army No.IC–78612K Lieutenant Ankit Siwach,
sustained the following injuries :-

“(i) Swelling over Rt. forearm

(ii) displaced fracture ulna (Rt Hand) lower 1/3″.

Army No.IC–78363W Lieutenant Kunal, sustained
the following injuries :-

“(i) Multiple abrasion over (Lt) forearm and
(Lt) Knee and Lower Abdomen.

(ii) Contusion over back”

Army No.IC–79215X Lieutenant Ritwick Singh,
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

sustained the following injuries :-

“(i) Contusion over B/L scapular region.

(ii) Contusion over (Rt) forearm.

(iii) Contusion over B/L thighs legs.

3. As per police patrolling party some
army personnel were consuming liquor publicly on
road, which was retaliated and started quarrel with the
police personnel. Ultimately the police personnel have
lodged FIR No.972/15, under Sections 353 and 332,
IPC against the unknown persons on 10.9.2015 at
4.15 a.m. In daily diary, the entry was made on 16.10
hrs. vide Entry No.023.

It is also alleged that on 10.9.2015, at 5.20
AM in the morning a large number of army personnel
have come to attack on police station – Vijay Nagar
and they have started beating the police staff of police
station Vijay Nagar, Indore. During the said incident,
they have taken hard disc of CCTV Camera and they
further damaged the computer and furniture of police
station. The said attack was committed by 60-70
personnel, who also looted rifle from the guard. An
FIR has been lodged for commission of offence on the
same day at 5.40 AM in the morning for commission of
offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 352,
307, 427 and 201, IPC vide FIR No.973/15. In daily
diary the entry was made at 17.06 hrs vide entry
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015


Thereafter, again some unknown persons have
come in large number and attacked another police
patrolling vehicle, which was operated under a lady
Sub-Inspector, wherein they misbehaved with the said
lady Sub-Inspector and assaulted on her and vehicle
was also damaged. The said incident was reported by
Sub-Inspector to police station Vijay Nagar, Indore,
wherein FIR No.974/2015, in respect of Commission of
an offence under Section 353, 354 and 332, IPC has
been registered vide Annexure R/2. In daily diary the
entry was made at (17.22) hrs vide entry No.029.

4. On 11.9.2015, a written complaint by the
Army Officers was sent by hand to SHO police station
Vijay Nagar apprising him about incident and request
to register FIR against Shri Vipul Shrivastava and
against other police persons vide (Annexure R/2). Para
1 to 4 of the written complaint reads as under :-

“(1) This is to inform you that on
9.9.2015, we a group of eight Army
Officers, visited Indore at 2330 hrs we
came out of Woodstock lounge. We were
stopped by police personnel and they
started abusing us. We politely informed
them that we were Army Officers and we
were going back. On hearing this one of
the police Officer became abusive to
Army as an organisation.

(2) We told him firmly not to abuse the
Indian Army. The police personnel
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

replied arrogantly and called in all the
police personnel around (approx 25-30 in
3-4 PCR vans). Without giving a fair
listening to us they started a lathi
charge. Four of us were injured, which
included two severely injured. One
officer suffered fracture on his leg and
one suffered a forearm fracture (copy of
medical reports attached).

(3) After beating us they illegally
detained two officers and took them to
Vijay Nagar Police Station.

(4) You are requested to lodge an FIR
against these police personnel, incl city
SP Mr. Vipul Shrivastav, who was
involved in beating us and also take strict
action against them especially against
the Officer who ordered the lathi charge
on unarmed and civilized Army Officers.
(5) For your necessary action.”

(i) The SHO refused to accept aforementioned
intimation and it had to be sent by registered post
(Annexure R.3) of written complaint was also
submitted to DIG police on 11.9.2015 vide (Annexure
P/4). However, no FIR has been registered against the
concerned police persons.

(ii) On 10.9.2015, a senior officers of the army
visited police station Vijay Nagar together first hand
information about the incident. On the same day, the
Station Commander Mhow, along with other senior
army officers, held a meeting with civil administration
including the DIG police, Collector etc at the DIR
Office, Indore. The army authorities on the same day,
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

ie., on 10.9.2015 itself ordered a court of enquiry
under the provisions of Army Act, 1950, to ensure a
fair trial and dispensation of justice in a time bound
manner. In order to investigate the matter and
conclude the court of inquiry repeated intimations /
summons were issued to Mr. Vipul Shrivastava, Mr.
G.D. Vaishnav, Sub – Inspector Vijay Nagar, Police
Station and Mr. Solanki, Sub-Inspector Vijay Nagar,
Police Station, on 7.10.2015, 14.10.2015, 21.10.2015
and 12.11.2015. When the police persons did not co-
operate in the court of inquiry an application under the
provisions of Army Act and Army Rules was made to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, on 14.10.2015
with a prayer to direct the witnesses to report to the
Presiding Officer, court of inquiry on 20.10.2015.
Thereafter, another application was made to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Indore on 12.11.2015 for
attendance of police witnesses before the presiding
officer, court of inquiry, despite of which none of the
police persons ever appeared before the court of

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that despite of repeated intimation and report no case
has been registered against the erring police persons,
but a case was promptly registered against army
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

officers at Crime No.972/2015, 973/2015 and
974/2015 by police station Vijay Nagar, Indore. An
application under Section 475 of Cr.P.C., read with
Section 125 of the Army Act and Rule 5 of the Criminal
court and Court Marshal Adjustment of jurisdiction
Rule, 1978 has been filed on behalf of the Army before
the JMFC, Indore praying for transfer of the said case
to the Army court. The SHO police station Vijay Nagar
issued notice with respect to the case registered
against the army officers requiring their statements.
Vide letter dated 6.11.2015, the police authorities were
requested to record the statements of the concerned
army officers at Mhow since they were committed in
the court of inquiry and were also undergoing the
mandatory young officers course. In respect of the
incident, which had taken place in the parking area of
BCM Heights, Indore, and young Army Officers were
mercilessly beaten, but no FIR was lodged by the
police personnel. Whereas police personnel registered
prompt FIR 971/15, against the unknown persons
under Sections 353 and 332, IPC. As per FIR the army
personnel started quarrelling with the police personnel.
It was found by the police persons that 10-12 persons
were having intoxicated effect of liquor and in such
intoxicated they abused and quarrelling with on duty
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

police persons.

6. As per reply of the police personnel, a large
number of army personnel have come to attack on the
police station Vijay Nagar and started beating to police
staff of police station Vijay Nagar, Indore. During the
said incident, they have taken hard disk of CCTV
Camera with a view to conceal their identity and they
further damaged the computer and furniture of police
station. The said attack was committed by 60-70 army
personnel who have also looted one rifle from the
guard, therefore, in such manner, again an FIR
972/15, has been lodged for commission of offence
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 352, 307, 427
and 201, IPC. The stand of the police personnel that
due to the said incident of ‘ Maarpeet’ (assault) with
the staff of police station Vijay Nagar, Indore, the
entire police personnel had been taken to hospital
where their MLC were performed and in furtherance of
investigation the statement of staff deployed at police
station Vijay Nagar, at the time of incident were also

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that army officers were victims and
brutally assault by the police personnel, but till today
no FIR has been registered. He has also drawn our
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

attention to the medical reports of four army officers
and submits that as per the injuries inflicted upon the
army officers and two of them sustained fracture, but
till today no FIR has been registered by the police
personnel whereas against the army officer they have
registered three FIR’s. He submitted that as per
injuries inflicted upon the army officers is of loss to the
nation that since these officers are from the fighting
arm of the Indian Army who lead the troop in battle
and counter insurgency / counter terrorist operations
and protect the borders of the country. After a tough
selection process only a few out of lacs of participants
are selected, who undergo rigorous training and are
then commissioned as officers. The fractures and
injuries inflicted upon these officers might adversely
affect their efficiency. The above incident could have
been avoided by the police by simply informing and
coordinating with the army authorities at Mhow, in
time. There was no need to treat the army officers as
hardened criminals.

8. The stand of the respondent No.1 – Union of
India that, the high handed manner in which the police
officers had been dealing with the matter is evident
from the fact that despite having medical evidence and
written complaint, no FIR has been registered against
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

the erring police officers till date. The inaction on part
of police authorities to register FIR is also in
contravention to the directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in the matter of Lalita Kumari V/s.
Government of U.P. reported as [2013(5) MPHT

9. In respect of action of the army officer for
the alleged misconduct concerned, a court of enquiry
is ordered without any delay. However, in defiance of
mandate of law the police officers have refused to
appear before the court of inquiry. In case, the
involvement of any Army Officer is found in the alleged
incident then appropriate action as per law.

10. Shri D. Rawal, learned ASG submits that
minimum action has been taken by the army
authorities by instituting a court of enquiry as per the
Army Act. At the earliest available opportunity co-
ordination was carried out with the civil authorities to
prevent any untoward incident. The army authorities
have taken appropriate steps without any delay by
initiating the court of inquiry, summoning the
witnesses, coordinating with civil authorities and
lodging complaint with the police. On the contrary the
police authorities have not cooperated in investigating
and have not registered any case against the erring
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

police officers. He has also drawn our attention to the
order passed in M.Cr.C.No.10037/2016 and
M.Cr.C.No.10039/2016 (Station Commander, Mhow
Cantt. V/s. State of M.P. Others) decided on
5.10.2016. In the aforesaid matter, the learned Single
Bench directed the respondents/State to transfer the
complete record of the proceedings in respect of Crime
Nos.973/2015, 972/2015 and 974/2015, registered at
police station Vijay Nagar, Indore to petitioner therein
under the relevant provisions of Army Act, 1950 read
with Army Rules, 1954 :-

“During post-lunch session when the
matter was listed in the supplementary
cause list before this court, Mr. Sunil
Jain, learned AAG appeared in the
matter and prayed for grant of some
time to the respondent – State
Government to file reply and submitted
he does not have any instructions in the
matter as he is appearing on advance

This court is of the considered opinion
that once this court has heard two
identical matter and the order was
pronounced in the open court, in respect
of the third matter, the prayer for grant
of time deserved to be rejected and is
accordingly rejected. The judgment
delivered in two identical matters shall
be applicable mutatis mutandis in the
present case also and the respondents
are directed to transfer the case ie.,
Crime No.974/2015, registered at police
station Vijay Nagar, Indore to the
Competent Military Authority under the
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

relevant provisions of the Army Act,
1950 read with the Army Rules, 1954.

With the aforesaid, the present
petition stands allowed and disposed

11. Shri Sunil Jain, learned AAG has submitted
that against the aforesaid order dated 5.10.2016,
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal vide No.1384/17
and 1386/17 have been preferred by the State and the
Hon’ble Supreme court issued a show cause notice.
Shri Jain, learned AAG has also submitted that a
written complaint lodged by the army personnel
regarding the incident by which number of young
officers have been beaten, the matter was investigated
by the police and no case was made out against the
police personnel to register FIR against them. A report
of Addl. Superintendent of Police (East) Zone – 1,
Distt. Indore, dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure R/6) is
relevant, which reads as under :-

dk;kZy; vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼iwoZ½ tksu1] ftyk bankSj
iykfl;k pkSjkgk] bUnkSj] e/;izn’s k Qksu 0731-2491360
[email protected]
dzekad [email protected]@[email protected],@2015 fnukad [email protected]@2015

iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;]
ftyk bUnkSj ¼iwoZ½
fo”k; %vkosnd lqfuy dqekjflag }kjk izLrqr vkosnu ds laca/k esa
lanHkZ % vki dk i= dzekad [email protected]
¼iwoZ½@ih,@iqf’[email protected]@365 [email protected]] fnukad 16] flrEcj]
mijksDr fo”k;karxZr ,oa lanfHkZr i= ds laca/k esa ys[k gS
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

fd vkosnd lqfuy dqekjflag ofjf”B dk;kZy; esa vkosnu i=
izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A vkosnu i= dk voyksdu fd;k x;k
vkosnu i= ds laca/k esa chlh,e gkbZV~l ds ikl cqVljsLV~zkW
eSustj Lora= ,oa p’enhn lk{kh vadqj ‘kekZ o fodk’k pkSgku ds
dFku fy;s x;s gS ftlus izkFkfed ?kVuk dk leFkZu djrs gq,
dFku fn;k gS layXu dFku izfrosnu fuEukuqlkj gS %
;g fd dUV~zksy :e ls lwpuk feyus ij tc lh0,l-ih0
foiqy JhokLro ,oa vU; iqfyl cy ekSds ij igqapk rks ogka
810 cqMLVkd jsLrjk ds lkeus ‘kjkc ds u’ks esa gqMnax dj jgs
Fks vkSj iwoZ ls igWqps iqfyl cy ds lkFk ekjihV dj jgs Fks A
ekSds ij fcxM+rs gkykr dks ns[krs gq, fLFkfr dks fu;af=r djus
gsrq ekSds ij igqaps iqfyl cy us vko’;drkuqlkj cy dk iz;ksx
dj gaxkek dj jgs gqMnafx;ksa dks ogka ls [knsM+k A ekSds ij
mifLFkr iqfyl cy us gkykr dk fu;f=r djus esa ckdk;nk
muds }kjk vius dRrZO; ds fuoZgu esa vko’;d cy dk iz;ksx
fd;k] ftls djus gsrq iqfyl cy fof/k }kjk vkc) ,oa
U;k;uqer Fkk A ekSds ij mifLFkr iqfyl }kjk nqHkkZouk iwoZd
vFkok vkijkf/kd vk’k; ls dksbZ dk;Z ugh fd;k x;k gS A
bUQsUV~zh Ldwy] egw ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk igys rks u’ks gh gkykr
esa ch]lh],e- gkbZV~l ds lkeus lkoZtfud LFkku ij ‘kjkc ihdj
mRikn epk;k] mDr d`R; ls jksdus ij muds }kjk ogha ij
iqfyl lnL;ksa ds lkFk ekjihV dh A mlds mijkar izkr% Fkkus
ij igqapdj ogka rksM+QksM+ dj ekjihV] ywV vkfn dh xbZ]
ftlds vk/kkj ij muds fo:) i`Fkdi`Fkd rhu vijk/k
iathc) fd, x, A blh dk;Zokgh ls :LV gksdj lsuk ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk Jh foiqy JhokLro ,oa vU; iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa
ds fo:) vijk/k iathc) fd, tkus gsrq mDr vkosnu izLrqr
fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gS A
Jh foiqu JhokLro ,oa vU; iqfyl vf/kdkjhx.k ?kVuk
ds le; viuh M~;Vw h ij Fks vkSj muds }kjk vius yksd drZO;
ds fuoZgu esa dk;Z djrs gq, ?kVuk LFky ij fufeZr fLFkfr dks
fu;af+=r djus gsrq vko’;d dne mBk;s] ftls djus ds fy,
og fof/k }kjk vkc) ,oa U;k;kuqer Fks A mudk dksbZ Hkh d`R;
vijk/k dh esa ugh vkrk gS A
layXu ewy vkosnu i= lgi=ks lfgr 17
jkts’k lgk;

vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd]
iwoZ] tksu1] ftyk bUnkSj

12. The medical documents filed by the
respondent No.1 along with the reply are the clear
evidence of police brutality against the young trainee
officers on the intervening night of 9.9.2015 to
10.9.2015 at Indore. If the allegation that, the trainee
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

army officers had consumed liquor, then as per
procedure, police should have carried out medical test
to gather. The supporting evidence, which infact was
never done. The MLC submitted along with the trainee
officer’s complaint was substantial prima – facie
evidence for filing of an FIR at police station –
Vijaynagar, Indore, at the first instance, which was not
done deliberately to protect their own officers. Infact,
police officers from police station – Vijay Nagar,
themselves were involved in the incident, so they have
managed to evade registering of FIR against their own

13. A serious allegation has been made by the
respondent No.1 that some police personnel including
City Superintendent of Police Mr. Vipin Shrivastava,
blatantly misused the authority vested with the police
and physically assaulted the army trainee officer from
Infantry school, Mhow, causing grievous injuries to
them. The medical reports, which have been produced
herein in the preceding paragraphs are the testimony
of police’s unprovoked violence, brutality and severe
injuries suffered by the trainee army officers in the
said incident. No law of the land permits police to
resort to such acts resulting into breaking the limbs of
the army personnel, who are known for their high
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

discipline and supreme sacrifice for the defence of the
Nation. Moreover, despite clinching medical evidence
attached with aggrieved officer’s complaint, police
action of not filing mandatory FIR against its own
erring personnel for commission of an undisputed
cognizable offence is entirely arbitrary and unlawful. It
amount to travesty of the truth and justice to suit their
vested interest.

14. The police under the relevant laws of section
Cr.P.C., is duty bound to register army complaint’s
FIR disclosing a prima facie cognizable offence.
Refusal to register an FIR for commission of a
cognizable offence is also contrary to the law laid-
down by the Apex court in the case of Lalita Kumari
V/s. Government of U.P. (supra) therefore, police
has not only flouted and defied the mandate of law as
envisage under section 154 of Cr.P.C, but also virtually
violated the directions given by the Apex court. A
counter allegation has been made by the Union of
India that, it is the police who is shielding its own
erring personnel responsible for the incident, which is
evident from the police report dated 30.9.2016, giving
clean cheat to its erring personnel thereby not filing
required FIR at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore. The
police has dragged its investigation for more than a
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

year with seemingly vested interests.

15. In respect of non-cooperation, the stand of
police officers are that they are ready to cooperate ‘in
house enquiry’ subject to provide security because
after the incident at midnight of 9 th and 10th
September, 2015, the police officers are scared
because if they will go in ‘inhouse enquiry’, inquiry in
the military guidelines then, there are chances army
person will take law in hand and the position will be
worse. Even, there is no enquiry conducted in
accordance with law and enquiry is going on before
the criminal court, which will decide the fate of the
case. In respect of in-house enquiry and transfer of
three FIR’s by order dated 5.10.2016, now the matter
is pending before Hon’ble the Supreme court and,
therefore, all those questions cannot be considered in
the present public interest litigation.

16. Now the only question, which is to be
decided in this public interest litigation is that the
matter to be ordered to be investigated by any other
independent agency like Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short ‘CBI’).

17. The Apex court in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Anr. V/s. Rajesh
Gandhi Anr. reported as 1996 (11) SCC 253 has
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

held that no one can insist that offence be investigated
by a particular agency. The aggrieved person can only
claim that offence he alleges be investigated properly,
but he has no right to claim it be investigated by a
particular agency of his choice.

18. The stand of the respondents No.2 to 5 that
if a person is aggrieved that a police station is not
registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C, then, he
can approach the Superintendent of Police under
Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C, by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the
sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that
even after registering it no proper investigation is held,
it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned
Magistrate concerned. If such an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is filed before the Magistrate, the
Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also
can direct an appropriate investigation to be made in a
case where, according to the aggrieved person no
proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can
also under the same provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

19. In the present case, on a written complaint
lodged by army officer, there was an investigation by
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

the Addl. Superintendent of Police, East Zone – I,
Distt. Indore and as per his report dated 30.9.2015,
inspite of the fact that some of the army officers
sustained fractures but the Addl. S.P., without
considering their medical papers, on the basis of
statement of police and independent witnesses namely
Ankur Sharma and Vikas Chouhan, came to the
conclusion that, no case for registering the FIR is
made out. As per reply of the respondents No.2 to 5,
the Addl. S.P. was justified in rejecting the prayer for
registering an FIR.

20. In Secy., Minor Irrigation Rural
Engg. Services, U.P. V/s. Sahngoo Ram Arya,
reported as 2002 (5) SCC 521, the Apex Court
observed that although the High court has power to
order a CBI enquiry that power should only be
exercised if the High court, after considering the
material on record comes to the conclusion that such
material discloses prima facie case calling for
investigation by a CBI or by any other similar agency.
A CBI enquiry cannot be ordered as matter of routine
merely because the party makes some allegation.

21. In the present case, we are of the opinion
that, the material on record discloses a prima facie
case calling for an investigation by any independent
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

agency because police personnel are involved and,
therefore, inspite of clinching medical evidence, no FIR
has been registered. On the contrary, they rejected the
prayer for registering of an FIR on 30.9.2015.

22. Shri Jain, learned AAG relied on the
decisions of the Apex court in the case of Sakiri Vasu
V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh Others, reported
2008 (2) SCC 409 Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe
V/s. Hemant Yashwant Dhage Others, reported
as 2016 6 SCC 277 and contended that a person has
a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by
police or proper investigation has not been done, then
the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but to
approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

23. Recently, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Puja Pal V/s. Union of India Others,
reported as 2016 (3) SCC 135 has held that the
extraordinary power of the Constitutional courts under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India qua the
issuance of direction to the CBI to conduct
investigation must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to
provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

or where the incident may have national or
international ramifications or where such an order may
be necessary for doing complete justice and for
enforcing the fundamental rights. The Apex court held
that the power of Constitutional courts to direct further
investigation or re-investigation is a dynamic
component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial
review, a basic feature of the Constitution and though
has to be exercised with due care and caution and
informed with self imposed restraint, the plentitude
and content thereof can neither be enervated nor
moderated by any legislation.

24. The allegation regarding army officers to
consume liquor openly has been denied by the
respondent No.1. Nor there is any medical report to
this effect. The consumption of liquor at a public place
like a parking area is beyond imagination because
inspite of the facilities available to the army officers,
they will drive away from Mhow to Indore to consume
liquor that to in a parking lawn. It appears that, in
order to satisfy their ego, the police personnel had
mercilessly beaten up the young officers and a story
was cooked up regarding consumption of liquor.

25. The role of the police is to be one for
protection of life, liberty and property of citizens, with
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

investigation of offences being one of its foremost
duties. The aim of the investigation is ultimately to
search for truth and to bring offendor to book.
“Criminal investigation is a lawful search for people
and things useful in reconstructing the circumstances
of an illegal act or omission and the mental state
accompanying it”. It is probing from the known to the
unknown, backward in time, and its goal is to
determine truth as far as it can be discovered in any
post-factum inquiry.

26. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the view that the statutory
agency has not functioned in an effective way or that
the circumstances are such that, it may reasonably be
presumed or inferred that it may not able to conduct
the investigation fairly or impartially. The army
personnel have made specific allegation against the
police authority. The report dated 30.9.2015, clearly
shows that they have not investigated the matter
properly inspite of clinching medical evidence, no FIR
has been registered. The prime concerned and the
endeavour of the court of law is to secure justice on
the basis of true facts, which ought to have been
unearthed through a committed resolved and a
competent investigating agency.

{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

27. From the return and the record of the
respondents No.2 to 5, which has been produced
though the young officers were beaten by the police
personnel and their medical reports are on record, the
police did not investigate the case properly at all and
letter dated 30.9.2015, has been issued, stating
therein that, no case is made out against the police

28. We are also not impressed by the
submission of the learned Additional Advocate General
that, if the respondent No.1 is dissatisfied, they may
file a private complaint. On the other hand, police
personnel acted promptly in registering three FIR’s
against army personnel.

29. We accordingly, direct the Director, CBI, to
take over the investigation of the case of the incident
of non-registration of FIR against police personnel. In
respect of written complaint lodged by the respondent
No.1 against the police personnel and bring the
investigation to its logical conclusion in accordance
with law. The record of the case, which has been
submitted by the State Government will be kept in a
sealed cover in the custody of Principal Registrar of
this court and shall be handed over after completing
the necessary formalities to the officers / authorities to
{….24….} W.P.No.6554/2015

receive them by the Director CBI. We also direct the
State Government and its police to cooperate fully with
the CBI in the investigation.

30. In the result, the petition succeeds and is
hereby allowed, but without any order as to costs.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation