Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11183
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA, J
KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
DELHI POLICE & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-769/2018
Mr. Manoj V. George, Mr. Chahat Khanna, Ms. Akshita Aggarwal, Mr. Rizwan A. Durrani & Ms. Shilpa Liza, Advs., Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma & Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for State, Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Devurat Yadav, Adv. for UOI, Insp. Arun Sindhu alongwith main IO Mr. Vinay Tyagi (Retd.) Crime Branch, Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra Kumar & Ms. K. Manaswini, for CBI
The court emphasized that re-investigation is warranted only in exceptional cases where prior investigations lack credibility, ensuring fair and impartial justice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition for re-investigation of a high-profile murder case involving multiple victims - Allegations of biased investigation against police - Court emphasizes the necessity of fair and impartial investigation, citing precedents on the importance of credibility in criminal investigations. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 18)
(B) Investigation - The court reiterates that re-investigation can be ordered only in rare and exceptional circumstances where previous investigations lack credibility or are biased. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, belonging to the SC community, sought re-investigation of the murder of her husband and four others, claiming police bias and procedural lapses in the initial investigation. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence of bias or procedural irregularities in the investigation, affirming the credibility of the police's findings and the scientific evidence presented. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the alleged bias in the investigation, the delay in FIR registration, and the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the police. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation was thorough and credible, dismissing the petitioner's claims of bias and procedural lapses, and emphasizing the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant re-investigation. (Paras 11, 17)
Result: Petition dismissed.
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . seeks the following prayers: “a. pass an appropriate writ order direction to re investigate the case in F.I.R. No. 352/2017 P.S. Mansarovar Park, Shahdara Delhi by C.B.I, or any other independent agency or b. pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the latter belongs to the SC community. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as a security guard at the apartment/compound of Jindal Oil Mill, 1/561, Main Gt. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. It is submitted that in the intervening night of 6-7.10.2017, the husband of the petitioner and four other ladies residing in the apartment were found murdered in a gruesome manner inside the house premises. It is submitted that thereafter the present FIR bearing No. 352/2017 dated 07.10.2017 at P.S. Mansarovar Park, under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against unknown persons on the complaint of Sh. C.B. Singh, SHO/Inspector, P.S. Mansarovar Park. It is submitted that for being a high profile murder in the National Capital of the country, it got wide coverage in print and electronic media. It is submitted that due to high coverage in the media, the Delhi police were under immense pressure to break the case. It is further submitted that police thereafter, due to immense pressure by public and the media coverage, hastily cooked up a story and falsely implicated the son (Anuj), son-in-law (Vikas) and other relatives of the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR. The son and son in law of the petitioner along with other relatives were arrested by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police on 6.12.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the latter has sent various representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs requesting the authorities to transfer the case from Crime Branch, Delhi Police to CBI for an impartial and fair investigation; however, no steps were taken and therefore, the present petition was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid prayer in the writ petition is sought on the following grounds:
- a) There was no proceeding conducted by the police under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. b) As per the initial PCR call, only one person was found dead.
- c) There was an inordinate delay of 07 hours in registering the FIR.
- d) It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that jewellery was found at the body of the deceased; therefore, robbery could not have been a motive of the gruesome crime. It is further stated that after two days, during the search conducted on the premises, aluminum almirahs were found locked and jewellery was recovered.
- e) It is further stated that no witnesses of the locality were examined.
- f) It was also stated that there was a property dispute between the family members and the said angle was never examined by the prosecuting agency.
- g) Finally, it is submitted that it is unbelievable that the son and son-in- law would kill their father and father-in-law respectively.
- h) It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the investigation should be handed over to the CBI for re-investigation to bring the real culprits to justice.
5. Reliance was placed on the below-mentioned paragraphs of the following judgments:
- i) State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 “19. .........He may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the lapses committed by the investigating/prosecuting teams. If he has escaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution agencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up. And if the accused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering is unfathomable. Here also, the investigating and prosecuting agencies are blameworthy.”
- ii) Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad
