Preeti Singh v. State of U.P. and others), which after arguments got dismissed as wit
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155304-DB AFR Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11652 of 2023 Petitioner :- Preeti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(v) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur to ensure the Fair Investigation of the Crime being Crime No. 43 of 2022 lodged on 22.02.2022 Under Section 167, 166, 218, 419, 420, 418, 466, 468, 474, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Badlapur, District Jaunpur by transferring the investigation of some other investigating Officer, in the better interest of justice. (vi) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch in regard to the Crime referred to above so that investigation of the Crime may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of the Crime, in the better interest of justice."
Legal Reasoning
3. Initially, the FIR in question was filed by the petitioner herself, however, during investigation by the Crime Branch she was implicated as an accused, therefore, at present it is not in dispute that the status of petitioner is that of an accused in the aforesaid case and she had come forward to challenge the aforesaid first information report by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10367 of 2023 (Preeti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), which after arguments got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.7.2023, however, with the observation that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being granted. The aforesaid order dated 6.7.2023 is quoted as under:-
Legal Reasoning
"1. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Khare, learned AGA for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 22.02.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 43 of 2022, under Sections 167, 166, 218, 419, 420, 418, 466, 468, 474, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report. 3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear 2 that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being given." 4. This clearly proves that the status of the petitioner at present is that of an accused. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lady, who is fighting with the anti-social elements and infact she had filed the first information report and therefore, her arrest will affect the investigation of the crime and real guilty person will go scot free. The accused nominated in the first information report are very influential person and therefore, they are avoiding the fair investigation of the crime and have managed to get the same transferred to Crime Branch with ulterior motive and now the petitioner has been made an accused in the present case itself. Submission, therefore, is that a writ of mandamus be issued to ensure fair investigation in Case Crime No. 43 of 2022 and a mandamus be issued to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpr to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch so the investigation may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of offence. 6. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and others (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2016) decided on 22.1.2016 and judgments of this Court dated 18.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5988 of 2023 (Smt. Sarita Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others) and dated 12.4.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 14210 of 2019 (Kali Charan and others vs. State of U.P. and another). He has also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Court in the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others 2010 (12) SCC 254 to submit that even the accused has also right seeking fair investigation. 7. Much emphasis was given by learned counsel for the petitioner by placing relaince on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babubhai (supra) that the investigating agency is duty bound to conduct the fair investigation avoiding mischief and harassment to any of the accused and it is submitted that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also constitutional right guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law. It is next submitted that the investigating agency cannot be permitted to be investigated in tainted and biased manner. Relevant paragraphs relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in Babubhai (supra) are quoted as under:- "32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer "is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence