Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 62
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K.K. Lahoti and U.C. Maheshwari, JJ.
Mithlesh Rai v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Appeals No.20 of 2013 and 803 of 2012 (Jabalpur) : against the order of Single Bench, passed in Writ Petition No.7426 of 2012; Decided on 24.1.2014.
Adarshmuni Trivedi with S.K. Mishra for appellant;
Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art.21 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.460 and 302 -- brutal murder of all four members of family -- offence of murder not registered at initial stage -- case diary of crime also tampered -- two different versions of police by interval of 4-5 days highly suspicious -- fair investigation on right dimension not carried out to save the actual culprits -- fresh investigation through some independent agency i.e. CBI required and accordingly ordered.
Held : As per settled position of law every citizen of this country has right to get fair investigation of the case and justice free from any bias and polluted act of the State authorities including the investigating agency. In such premises, it is held that the investigation of the crime has not been carried out by the State agency with correct approach fairly and impartially keeping in view all probable dimensions. Therefore, to keep and intact the faith of the appellants and people at large in the existing system in the available circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned crime requires fresh investigation through some independent agency of the outside of the State, i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the same is ordered. (2010)3 SCC 571 followed. (2009)1 SCC 441 and (2011)12 SCC 328 distinguished.
[Para 27
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- investigation by State agency not the subject-matter of judicial review in writ jurisdiction of High Court -- but in case of violation of rights of any citizen by the authorities, High Court can rectify such mistake by judicial review. (2010)3 SCC 571 followed. [Para 28
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-21 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 460 rFkk 302 && dqVqac ds lHkh pkj lnL;ksa dh fueZe gR;k && izkjafHkd izØe esa gR;k dk vijk/k jftLVj ugha && vijk/k dh ekeyk Mk;jh ls Hkh NsM+NkM+ && 4&5 fnuksa ds varjky ls iqfyl ds nks dFku vR;ar lafnX/k && okLrfod vijkf/k;ksa dks cpkus ds fy, lgh fn’kk esa vUos”k.k ugha && fdlh Lora= vfHkdj.k vFkkZr~ dsanzh; vUos”k.k C;wjks }kjk u, fljs ls vUos”k.k visf{kr rFkk rn~uqlkj vknsf’krA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k dh LFkkfir fLFkfr ds vuqlkj bl ns’k ds izR;sd ukxfjd dks ekeys dk fu”i{k vUos”k.k rFkk vUos”k.k vfHkdj.k lfgr jkT; izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fdlh Hkh i{kikr rFkk nwf”kr d`R; ls eqDr U;k; ikus dk vf/kdkj gSA bl fLFkr esa] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd jkT; vfHkdj.k }kjk lHkh laHkkO; vk;keksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, fu”i{k :i ls rFkk fcuk i{kikr ds lgh igq¡p ls vijk/k dk vUos”k.k ugha fd;k x;kA blfy,] orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vihykfFkZ;ksa rFkk O;kid :i ls yksxksa dks fo|eku ra= esa fo’okl v{kr j[krs gq,] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd vkf{kIr vijk/k dk jkT; ds ckgj ds fdlh Lora= vfHkdj.k vFkkZr~ fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e ds v/khu LFkkfir dsanzh; vUos”k.k C;wjks }kjk u, fljs ls vUos”k.k visf{kr gS rFkk bldk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 571 vuqlfjrA ¼2009½1 ,l lh lh 441 rFkk ¼2011½12 ,l lh lh 328 izHksfnrA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && jkT; vfHkdj.k }kjk vUos”k.k mPp U;k;ky; dh fjV vf/kdkfjrk esa U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh fo”k;&oLrq ugha && ijarq izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fdlh ukxfjd ds vf/kdkjksa ds vfrØe.k dh n’kk esa mPp U;k;ky; U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu }kjk bl Hkwy dks lq/kkj ldrk gSA ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 571 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28½
Maheshwari, J. -- 1. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid both the intra-Court writ appeals.
2. The appellants have filed their respective Writ Appeal No.20 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.803 of 2012 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.7426 of 2012 whereby their joint petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to issue the appropriate writ for the following reliefs has been dismissed :
1. To issue a writ of mandamus and command the respondents and call the entire records of the investigation related to Crime No.50/2012 of Police Station Kotwali Umariya, District Umariya 460 of IPC, incident dated intervening night of 17.2.2012.
2. To direct the CBI established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, to carry out the fresh investigation of the Chandrika Rai and his family murder case dated 17.2.2012.
3. And pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.
3. For the convenience the name of the aforesaid appellants, Santan Rai @ Pappu Rai and Mithlesh Rai respectively are hereinafter referred as “the petitioners No.1 and 2” respectively or “petitioners” as stated in the impugned order.
4. The appellants had filed the writ petition with their joint names contending that deceased Chandrika Rai, the brother of petitioner No.2, the brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1, was fearless and dynamic journalist of Umaria. He had waged the war against the Coal and Bhoo Mafias of Shahdol and Umaria region, so also against their protectors, the local politicians by publishing the news and articles against them. Due to such reasons, he was subjected to threats for his life, in spite of that he had not left his principles and had continued to publish the news and articles against such Mafias. On his published news, the authorities had intercepted and seized the coal having the worth of Rs.80,00,000/- when the same was being illegally transported by them. He had also published the news of illegal allotment of mining tender by the authorities, on which the Chief Minister of the State had intervened in the matter and had cancelled such tenders. In this regard, the copies of the newspaper cuttings were annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.
5. As per averments, before his murder, he being a journalist was covering the news of kidnapping case of Anant Jhariya s/o Hemant Jhariya, the SDO of PWD, Umaria. As on 15.2.2012 such Anant Jhariya, a seven years old boy on his returning from the coaching class on the way was kidnapped and thereafter his kidnappers had demanded five crores ransom from his father to release such boy. In connection of such case, the deceased had collected some material evidence against some very eminent persons of the society and was on the verge of exposing them.
6. Due to collection of such material by Chandrika Rai under his fear the kidnappers without taking any sum of ransom had left said child Anant Jhariya at Beohari Railway Station. Besides this, on the basis of the news and articles published at his instant in the newspapers as many as 58 cases were registered by the administration against the persons involved in the illegal mining, Bhoo Mafias and other related influential persons.
7. On 18.2.2012 the house of the deceased Chandrika Rai was found to be locked upto the evening as nobody had come out from the house and none was picking up the phone of Vinay Yadav, who continuously between 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. tried to contact the deceased, Chandrika Rai, on which Vinay Yadav asked the petitioner No.2, the younger brother of the deceased in this regard, then he replied that the deceased might have gone to his farm house. But thereafter Raju Sharma, Brijendra Tiwari and Santosh Gupta had reached to the house of deceased and found it locked. Then at 6 O’clock in the evening he called the petitioner No.2, on his reaching, he had broken the lock and entered in the house, where they had fo
