Judicial interference in investigations is unwarranted without substantial evidence of bias or procedural impropriety, reaffirming the integrity of investigative processes.

Order :

CRLW No. 1731/2024

1. By way of filing this instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner, a permanent resident of Udaipur, seeks redress from this Court for the unlawful and arbitrary acts committed by the accused, including the extortion of a sum of Rs. 1.83 crores by Dy. S.P. Jitendra Achaliya and his associates. The petitioner contends that the actions of the accused have violated several fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India . Furthermore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions for the investigation and transfer of the same to an impartial agency, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), contending that the state police and other authorities have failed to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation, thereby shielding the accused from accountability.

2. The petitioner, a computer software developer, has been residing in Kuwait since 1993, where he has established a successful business, Pegasus Turn Solution Pvt Ltd, which operates in Kuwait, Dubai, and India. The petitioner has been sending money for his family’s livelihood in India since then. In 2007, the petitioner transferred funds to his brother, Neelesh Purbia, for the purchase of property in India, but his brother fraudulently inserted his name also in the purchase deed without contributing financially. Following the untimely death of his brother on 06.11.2019, the petitioner, on 13.02.2022, was approached by his sister-in-law, Loveleena, to sell the property at a price of five crores and to procure new property for him. However, Loveleena, in collusion with the police, staged a scenario that led to the petitioner’s arrest under fabricated charges on 17.02.2022. A subsequent FIR was lodged against him under sections 457, 380, and 120B of the IPC, which the petitioner vehemently disputes.

3. On 18.02.2022, police personnel led by SI Roshanlal and others visited the petitioner’s office and arrested an accountant and a security guard, further implicating the petitioner in the case. The petitioner approached the office of the Additional SP, Udaipur, where he was informed that the police had no right to intervene in a property dispute and that only proceedings under section 145 of the CrPC would apply. However, the petitioner was subsequently coerced by Dy. S.P. Jitendra Achaliya and his associates into signing an agreement under duress, threatening him with imprisonment and the confiscation of his passport if he refused to comply. The petitioner, fearing wrongful detention, was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 1.83 crores over a period of time to secure the withdrawal of the fabricated FIRs and regain control of his property. The entire sequence of events was documented through handwritten agreements, video footage, and remittance receipts. However, the situation worsened as the petitioner was continuously threatened and harassed by the accused, including demands for additional sums to resolve the matter.

4. The petitioner asserts that the acts committed by Dy. S.P. Jitendra Achaliya and his associates, including threats, extortion, and wrongful confinement, amount to gross violations of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner highlights that despite the filing of an FIR and subsequent charge sheet by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), the state authorities, including ACB officials and the Department of Personnel (DOP), have failed to take appropriate action against the accused, allowing them to operate with impunity. The petitioner further points out that the suspension of Dy. S.P. Jitendra Achaliya was unlawfully stayed, and the accused has been reinstated despite his involvement in serious criminal activities. The petitioner contends that this constitutes an attempt by the state machinery to shield the accused from the consequences of his actions, thereby obstructing justice.

5. Moreover, th