JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel representing respondents No.1 to 5.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39767 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge held that investigation could not be stalled for an indefinite period and that the Court was not inclined to continue further with the interim order dated 29.10.2022 Accordingly, the police were permitted to go ahead with the investigation. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

4. Appellant before us is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Telangana State Unit. It is stated that on 26.10.2022, a first information was lodged by respondent No.8 alleging that on 06.09.2022 two out of the three accused persons viz., Ramachandra Bharati @ Satish Sharma and Nanda Kumar had met the informant and started negotiations with him not to contest as a candidate from the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) party; instead he was asked to join BJP party by resigning from the TRS party. In this connection, he stated that he was offered an amount of Rs.100 crores besides certain contract works of the Central Government. Informant alleged that if he did not do as per the diktat of the accused persons, criminal cases would be foisted on him besides raids by central agencies. It is in the above backdrop that the first information was lodged before the Moinabad Police Station on the basis of which Cr.No.455 of 2022 came to be registered under Sections 120-B, 171-B, 171-E, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. According to the appellant the entire episode was stage managed with the sole objective of defaming appellant political party. Repeatedly the name of appellant political party was mentioned in the first information. However, it has been clarified that appellant is in no way connected with the accused persons who are neither members of the appellant political party nor are associated with it in any manner.

6. In the above backdrop, the related writ petition came to be filed contending that Cr.No.455 of 2022 registered with the Moinabad Police Station should be entrusted to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for a free and fair investigation.

7. Learned Single Judge passed an order dated 29.10.2022. From a perusal of the order dated 29.10.2022, we find that State had raised objection as to the locus standi of the appellant to institute the writ petition. However, learned Single Judge was of the view that State should file a detailed counter-affidavit and till such counter-affidavit was filed, further investigation in Cr.No.455 of 2022 of Moinabad Police Station was deferred.

8. After the State filed the counter-affidavit to which appellant filed rejoinder, the matter was again taken up by the learned Single Judge. In the meanwhile another writ petition being W.P.No.40733 of 2022 came to be filed by the three accused persons seeking investigation in Cr.No.455 of 2022 by a SIT or by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Both the writ petitions were taken up together. Learned Single Judge observed that it was too early for the Court to reach any prima facie opinion that action of the State Police is tainted with mala fides and aimed only to target the appellant. While the crime was registered on 26.10.2022 appellant filed the writ petition on the very next day i.e., on 27.10.2022. Deferment of investigation order was passed on 29.10.2022. While keeping the writ petitions pending, as according to the learned Single Judge larger issues of public importance are involved for which a detailed hearing is required, the embargo on investigation was lifted whereafter respondent Police were allowed to go ahead with the investigation vide the or