9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involves a sitting Minister of the West Bengal Government, the person whose premises were to be searched namely, Shahjahan is a very influential person in the ruling party and has been on the run for over 50 days and apprehended only on 29 th February, 2024. Above all, the circumstances under which FIR No. 7 of 2024 which was registered by the Inspector-in-charge, Nazat Police Station is clouded with suspicion for more than one reason. In Paragraph 13 and 14 of the interim order dated 11th January, 2024, the learned Single Bench has recorded a finding that an officer-in-charge who has registered an FIR had signed it at 10:30 A.M. in the morning on the complaint of the security guard of Shahjahan could not have signed another FIR on the same day based on a complaint of a Sub-Inspector of Police (Suo Moto). Therefore, the Court observed that there was a clear inconsistency between the two FIRs which disclose completely different version of the incident and the Court s mind is not free from doubt that FIR No. 7 of 2024 may have been pre-timed based on a procured complaint to show prior FIR on the same day against the officials of ED and therefore, the allegations made by ED cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petitioner in WPA 802 of 2024. The appellant in MAT 191 of 2024 is the State of West Bengal through its Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and 7 others who are the various police officials. 2. The writ petition was filed by the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred as ED) for transfer of investigation of Case No. 9 of 2024, Case No. 8 of 2024 on the file of the Nazat Police Station and Case No. 18 of 2024 on the file of the Bongaon Police Station from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as CBI), the 9th and 2nd respondent in these appeals. The writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order constituting of Special Investigating Team consisting of officers of the CBI and the State Police. Aggrieved by such order, both CBI and the State of West Bengal have preferred these appeals. 3. We have elaborately heard the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. S.V Raju and the Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi appearing for the ED, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Ashok Chakraborty for CBI and learned Advocate General, Mr. Kishore Dutta for the State of West Bengal. 4. The facts of the case as bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned Advocate General that Section 307 IPC was added only on 17thJanuary, 2024. 5. In the writ petition ED contended that in the complain they had specifically stated with regard to the incident which took place on 5th January, 2024 and the concerned police ought to have registered an FIR under various provisions of IPC and including Section 307 but contrary to the same FIR was registered under the other provisions omitting Section 307 of the IPC. It was contended that all the sections mentioned in FIR except Section 353 are bailable offences and, therefore, would contend that the respondent/ State Police are biased in conducting the investigation of the crime which was committed against the officials of ED who were seriously injured and the official equipment were robbed while they were on duty conducting the search as per the provisions of the PMLA Act. It was further contended that the FIR No. 18 of 2024 of Bongaon Police Station was also registered without mentioning the relevant sections as brought out in the complaint lodged by ED. It was contended that the incident which took place on 5th January, 2024 was recorded by media personnel which show that neither the ED o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Authorities. 7. In this regard, we may straight away refer to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. Versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571. In the said case the respondent organization alleged that since the police administration in the State of West Bengal was under the influence of the ruling party, was trying to hide the incident to save its image, the investigations of the incident be handed over to CBI, an independent agency. This Court in its judgment dated 30.03.2001 felt that in the background of the case it had strong reservations about the impartiality and fairness in the investigation by the State Police because of the political fallout, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the investigation by the State Investigating Agency. Further, the Court held that even if the investigation was conducted fairly and truthfully by the State Police, it is still be viewed with suspicion because of the allegation that all the assailants were members of the ruling party. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to hand over investigation into the said incident to CBI. Challenging the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wide powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Court must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of the constitutional powers. It further held that the very plentitude of the power under the said article requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing the direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised, but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. It was further held that this extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. 10. In Bimal Gurung Versus Union of India (2018) 15 SCC 480 the President of an organization f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncident which took place on 5th January, 2024, in our opinion, was unprecedented. The learned Single Bench in the impugned order in Paragraph 14 has observed that it is indeed quite astounding, to say the least, that State police are having no information on the whereabouts of a prominent political leader of the locality like the accused Shahjahan and are unable to arrest him. The arrest of the said accused took place only on 29 th February, 2024 after various orders were passed in suo moto case WPA 4011 of 2024 and other connected matters. The Court while hearing those matters had recorded the submission made on behalf of the State of West Bengal that they had formed an opinion that there was stay of arrest of the accused. It was clarified in the said proceedings that the stay which was granted in these appeals were restricted only to investigation by the State Police and not the stay of the arrest. The State had accepted the fact that as many as 42 cases have been registered against the absconding accused and several of them were as old as 4 years. After the orders were passed in the suo moto proceedings the absconding accused was apprehended on 29th February, 2024 and it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked the Officials of the Enforcement Directorate. A criminal revision case in CRR No. 164 of 2024 was filed by ED to quash FIR No. 7 of 2024 on the file of the Nazat Police Station. The learned Single Bench after elaborately hearing the Learned Additional Solicitor General for ED and the learned Advocate General for the State of West Bengal has granted an order of stay of FIR No. 7 of 2024 till 31st March, 2024 with a direction to the State of West Bengal to file their affidavit-in-opposition by 18th January, 2024. We are informed that such an affidavit is yet to be filed. In Paragraph 13 and 14 of the interim order dated 11th January, 2024, the learned Single Bench has recorded a finding that an officer-in-charge who has registered an FIR had signed it at 10:30 A.M. in the morning on the complaint of the security guard of Shahjahan could not have signed another FIR on the same day based on a complaint of a Sub-Inspector of Police (Suo Moto). Therefore, the Court observed that there was a clear inconsistency between the two FIRs which disclose completely different version of the incident and the Court s mind is not free from doubt that FIR No. 7 of 2024 may have been pre-timed base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal police to handle the matter, as discussed in the order and in view of the allegation of bias levelled by the Enforcement Directorate. 4. Further, the learned Single Bench has observed that a pan India organisation like the CBI would also be able to deal better with inter-State or inter-country measure if it becomes necessary to undertake the same and one cannot rule out the possibility of any accused crossing over to a neighbouring country. 5. Thus, in the background of these findings, the question to be decided in the appeal filed by the Enforcement 2Directorate is whether the State Police could be part of the Special Investigating Team. 6. The matter is to be decided after hearing both the parties, more so when the State of West Bengal also are aggrieved by the very same impugned order and they have filed an independent appeal. 7. Therefore, till the appeals are heard and disposed of, orders and directions issued by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order dated 17th January, 2024 shall remain stayed until further orders. Consequently, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 in M.A.T. 169 of 2024 is disposed of. 8. It goes without saying that the West Bengal State Police shall also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hear the allegation made by ED that they were not even given the copy of the FIR registered based on their complaint in FIR No. 9 of 2024 and they were able to secure a certified copy only after they file the writ petition. In the suo moto FIR which was registered at the same police station in FIR No. 8 of 2024, it is stated that three thousand people gathered to attack the officers of ED and the CRPF personnel. In the complaint lodged by ED, which has been registered as FIR No. 9 or 2024, it has been mentioned that about eight hundred to one thousand people gathered and attacked the officials of ED and CRPF personnel, snatched and took away the official equipment of the officials. The learned Single Bench has recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned order that there was no serious effort made to enter the residence of the accused. This finding appears to be not seriously disputed in the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal in MAT no. 194 of 2024 more particularly, the specific case of ED that the premises was locked from inside. In paragraph 13 of the impugned order the learned Single Bench has observed that the suo moto FIR, (the FIR No. 8 of 2024) did not contain relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
