Point of Law: If a citizen, who is a defacto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of a cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against influential persons, prays before a High Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the C.B.I., such prayer should not be granted on mere asking.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“(a) To allow this Petition.

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus ordering transferring the investigation of First Information Report No. CRI, 168 of 2015 registered with Rajpipla Police Station, on 27.10.2015 for having committed the offence of murder to the CBI, as this Hon’bie Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(c) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the newly appointed investigation agency to conduct investigation of First Information Report No. CRI, 168 of 2015 registered with Rajpipla Police Station on 27.10.2015 strictly in accordance with law;

(d) To pass any other order or orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition may be summarized as under:

2.1 The petitioner herein is the daughter of Shri Khushalbhai Gopalbhai Vasava and Ratanben Khushalbhai Vasava (both deceased/victims in the FIR CR.I, 168/15). Petitioner herein, is the owner of land bearing survey number 285 of village Nava Vaghpura.

2.2 That on the said piece of land, Petitioner herein was desirous to start a nursery school and she had also obtained permission for nonagricultural purpose. That the construction activities had commenced in order to build the nursery school and the same was being supervised by the parents of the Petitioner herein. That the parents of the Petitioner were residing on the same land to overlook the construction activities.

2.3 That on 25.10.2015 the Petitioner herein along with her husband visited Mount Abu in order to drop off her two daughters and on her way back from Mount Abu, the very next day, she had a telephonic conversation with her parents. That on 27.10.2015, when the Petitioner herein was at her residence, she had received a phone call from the building contractor that the father of the Petitioner herein (Shri Khushalbhai) had received an injury on his head and there was severe bleeding as well. On hearing the said details, petitioner along with her School Clerk immediately rushed to the land where her parents were residing. On reaching there, to her utter shock, she found that her father and mother had received a similar type of injury and unfortunately, both of them had passed away.

2.4 That the Petitioner herein filed a complaint on 27.10.2015 which came to be registered as CR.I. No. 168/2015. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Police had drawn the Inquest Panchnama. That the Post-Mortem report also supports the version as narrated by the Petitioner. That pursuant to the lodging of the FIR there was no action being taken by the Police authorities and hence the Petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rajpipla. That the said complaint was filed as C.R.INo. 168/15, but there was no progress with the said investigation. In spite of the Petitioner naming the suspect in the said FIR, apart from the Police had not seized the mudamal Article.

2.5 That since there was absolutely no progress with the investigation, the petitioner moved this Court and preferred Special Criminal Application No. 4995/2016 wherein vide order dated 02.08.2016, this Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to the CID from the investigating authority (Rajpipla Police). That this Court in the said order clearly observed that without any ambiguity CID would complete its investigation within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the said order.

2.6 As per the contents of the petitioner, there was complete inaction on the part of CID and they did once again record the statement of the Petitioner herein. No other step was taken by the CID and the investigation reached a complete dead end for certain reasons best known to CID.