KAVITABEN G SURTANI v. STATE OF GUJAART

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date of decision: 09/07/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT

1.(cid:9)In this petition, filed under Article-226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who is the wife of deceased Govindji Surtani, who has been allegedly murdered by builder-lobby with the help of 'gundas' and other persons has prayed for further investigation into the cases referred to in Annexure-'A' to the petition, by a Special Squad as ordered by the Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar and submit its report to this Court. It is also prayed that in alternative to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the cases and applications referred to in Annexure-'A' to the petition and thereafter to conduct the trial afresh, on the grounds stated in the petition.

2.(cid:9)The main ground sought to be canvassed in this petition is that, the Deputy Director General of Police, Gujarat State, vide office order dated 13th December, 2000, ordered that the Special Squad headed by Mrs. Geetaben Johri, Additional Commissioner of Police shall investigate and inquire into the offences registered with the Baroda City Police Station, which are mentioned in the said letter and also to arrest the accused. Notwithstanding the above order is passed the crime registered vide CR No.157/99 for commission of the offence of murder of Govindram Surtani, husband of the petitioner and crime registered vide CR No.188/99 for commission of the offence of murder of Bhagwandas Meghwani have not been investigated by the Special Squad headed by Mrs. Geetaben Johri. It is also averred in the petition that police officials in connivance with the builder lobby have not booked the real culprits and therefore also further investigation in connection with the crime registered vide CR No.157/99 AND CR No.188/99 is required to be made by the Special Squad headed by Mrs. Geetaben Johri, Additional Commissioner of Police. Various incidents have been highlighted in the memo of the petition showing the strength of the builder lobby, who with the help of 'gundas' have murdered Govindram Surtani, husband of the petitioner and Bhagwandas Meghwani. It is also stated in the petition that the deceased husband of the petitioner had lodged FIR bearing I CR No.144/99 with the Vadodara Police Station against Dolat Harjani and Mukesh Harjani. Moreover, when the deceased Govindram Surtani was going to give his statement, Dolat and Mukesh Harjani assaulted him, snatched away his gold chain and administered threats not to give the evidence against the builder lobby. In short, it is stated in the petition that the police in connivance with the builder lobby has not properly investigated all the crimes mentioned in the letter dated 13th December, 2000 (Annexure-'A' to the petition) and therefore further investigation may be made by the Special Squad headed by Mrs. Geetaben Johri, Additional Commissioner of Police or alternatively investigation may be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, it is prayed to pass appropriate order as prayed for in the petition.

3.(cid:9)Mr.Nitin Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner, during the course of his oral submission, raised similar contentions which have been canvassed in the memo of the petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce them again.

4.(cid:9)Mr.ND Gohil, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat as well as other respondents submitted that the prayer made in this petition has been considered in two previous petitions and both the petitions came to be withdrawn. Therefore, on the same cause of action, this third petition is not maintainable. Besides this, he has also contended that the order dated 13th December, 2000 passed by the Deputy Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar directing to investigate the crimes mentioned in that letter by Mrs. Geetaben Johri, Additional Commissioner of Police has been fully complied with and therefore there is no substance in the challenge made in this petition, which deserves to be dismissed.

5.(cid:9)I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.Nitin Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.ND Gohil, learned APP for the respondent nos.1 to 5 i.e. State of Gujarat and other police personnels. I have also perused the averments made in the memo of the petition, grounds set out therein and various documents annexed with the petition including the orders passed by this Court in three petitions filed by the present petitioner. I have also perused the report made by Mrs. Geetaben Johri, Additional Commissioner of Police, which is supplied by Mr.ND Gohil, learned APP during the course of his submission.

6.(cid:9)At the outset it may be appreciated that the present petitioner has filed Special Criminal Application No.671/2001, wherein similar reliefs have been prayed for. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: A.M.Kapadia, J. ). This Court vide order dated 17th October, 2001 passed the following order : "Mr.RJ Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition in view of the fact that the investigation of the cases registered vide CR Nos.131/2000, 55/2000 and 292/2000 with Baroda City Police Station, conducted by a Special Squad constituted as per the order dated December 13,2000 by the Deputy Director General of Police, Gujarat State, is now over, as per the statement made by Mr.KT Dave, learned APP. Mr.KT Dave, learned APP states that he has no objection if leave to withdraw the petition is granted. He further states that police protection is also granted to the petitioner as per the aforesaid order. In view of this, leave to withdraw the petition is granted. Petition stands disposed of as it is withdrawn. " The present petitioner has also filed Criminal Misc. Application No.4059/2001, wherein also similar reliefs were claimed. The said petition was listed for hearing before this Court (Coram: M.H.Kadri, J.). This Court vide order dated 6th September, 2001, passed the following order : "After arguing the application for considerable length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is granted.

At this stage, learned APP Mr.SJ Dave has submitted that though the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Court for further investigation was rejected, the State has not filed any appeal or revision against that order, but right of further investigation may be reserved for the prosecution State. It would be open for the State or Investigating Agency to make furtehr investigation and submit its report before the learned Sessions Judge.