HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13818 of 2013 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] Respondent :- [ENTITY] & 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate, Dr. [ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
Hon'ble [ENTITY], J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble [ENTITY], J.)
1. The factual matrix of the case as emerges from the pleading of the parties is that on 24.04.2013 the petitioner, Smt. [ENTITY], who alleges herself to be the owner of 1360 Sq ft. of land of Arazi No. 153 situated at Mauza Bharlai, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District [ENTITY] lodged a First Information Report against respondent nos. 7 to 14 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] & [SECTION] [ACT] at Police Station Shivpur, District [ENTITY]. As per the said FIR, on coming to know that the boundry wall constructed by the petitioner over the plot of land mentioned above was being demolished by the accused persons, the petitioner reached the spot where she was assaulted and her modesty was outraged. It was alleged by the petitioner that the respondents no. 12 & 13 had executed two agreements to sale with respect to same Arazi No. 153 (including the land of the petitioner) one in favour of respondents no. 8, 9 & 11 and the other in favour of respondent no. 14 and as such in view of the averments made in the FIR the respondents no. 7 to 14 had committed forgery. The said case was registered as [CASE NUMBER]. The matter was being investigated by the local police.
2. Smt. [ENTITY] - private opposite party no. 8 and Smt. [ENTITY] - private respondent no. 11 preferred a [CASE NUMBER], [ENTITY] & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Ors. before this Court for quashing the FIR dated 24.04.2013 in [CASE NUMBER]. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.05.2013 with a direction to the petitioners of the said writ petition to appear before the court concerned within thirteen days and apply for bail.
3. After having failed to successfully challenge the FIR dated 24.04.2013, Smt. [ENTITY] is alleged to have made a representation to the Chief Minister, U.P. in which she stated that for a fair investigation in case crime no. 60 of 2013, 80 of 2013 and 89 of 2013, pending against her and her husband, the investigation be ordered to be conducted by Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID).
4. On 16.05.2013 Shri [ENTITY], State Minister, [ENTITY], Basic Shiksha, Lucknow wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, U.P. requesting the latter to pass necessary orders for investigation of the false cases lodged against the husband of Smt. [ENTITY] by the CB-CID. The letter / representation made by Smt. [ENTITY] alleged to have been enclosed along with the letter dated 16.05.2013 is not on record. The letter dated 16.05.2013 written by Shri [ENTITY] to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh is being quoted below:
ek0 eq[;eU=h th] d`i;k Jherh uhye jko iRuh Jh lat; dqekj jko fuokfluh & Q~ySV uEcj & 64] ujflag vikVZeasUV] egewj xat tuin &okjk.klh ds lyaXu izkFkZuk &i= dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djasA mDr }kjk vius ifr ds fo:) iathd`r eqdneksa dh fu"i{k tkWp lh0ch0lh0vkbZ0Mh0 }kjk djk;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vr% vkils lknj vuqjks/k gS fd Jherh uhye jko ds ifr ds fo:) iathd`r QthZ eqdneksa dh lh0ch0lh0vkbZ0Mh0 }kjk djk;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djassA g0 viBuh;
16-5-2013 (dSyk'k pkSjfl;k) jkT; ea=h cky fodkl ,oa iq"Vkgkj] csfld f'k{kk foHkkx m0 iz0 'kklu
5. On the said letter of Shri [ENTITY] a noting was been made by Shri [ENTITY], Minister, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Child Welfare, Uttar Pradesh Government directing the Principal Secretary (Home) to get the matter investigated as desired by Shri [ENTITY]. It may be mentioned that the second paragraph of the letter written by Shri [ENTITY] was marked as X'. The following was the noting made by Shri [ENTITY]:
izeq[k lfpo x`g ek0 ea=hth ds vuqjks/kkuqlkj va'k "d" ds vuqlkj tkap djk;asA g0 viBuh;
27-5-2013 (vgen glu) ea=h fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k] f'k'kq dY;k.k mRrj izns'k 'kklu
6. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, [ENTITY] (SSP, [ENTITY]) was required to give his report regarding the request of Smt. [ENTITY] for transfer of investigation to CB-CID. The SSP, [ENTITY], on the basis of the report of Shri [ENTITY], SP (Crime), [ENTITY], wrote a letter dated 04.06.2013 to the Secretary, Home (Police) in which the former opined that there was no justification / need to get the matter investigated by CB-CID.
7. On 12.06.2013 Shri [ENTITY], Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. wrote a letter to the Director General of Police Economic Offence Wing, Lucknow in which it was stated that the State Government had taken a decision that the investigation in [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Shivpur, [ENTITY] and [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Jaitpura, [ENTITY] be investigated by the Economic Offence Wing. The Director General of Police was directed to get the matter investigated and submit his report. The letter / order dated 16.5.2013 passed by Shri [ENTITY] is reproduced below:
izs'kd] lq/khj flag pkSgku mi lfpo] m0iz0 'kkluA lsok esa] iqfyl egkfuns"kd] vkfFkZd vijk/k vuqla/kku laxBu] y[kuA xksiu vuqHkkx 8 y[ku fnukWd & 12 twu] 2013 fo'k;: tuin okjk.klh ds Fkkuk f"koiqj ij iathd`r eq0v0l0 89@2013 rFkk tSriqjk okjk.klh ij iathd`r eq0v0l0 60@2013 dh foospuk vkfFkZd vijk/k vuqla/kku laxBu ls djk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo'k;d ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] okjk.klh ds i= la[;k lh,lVh@ vkjVhth&839@2013 fnukWd 04 twu] 2013 dh layXudksa lfgr Nk;kizfr ,rn}kjk layXu dj izsf'kr djrs gq;s eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ"k gqvk gS fd "kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr mijksDr iathd`r vfHk;ksxksa dh foospuk vkfFkZd vijk/k vuqla/kku laxBu ls djk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 2 vr: vuqjks/k gS fd d`i;k le;c) :Ik ls mijksDr iathd`r vfHk;ksxksa dh foospuk iw.kZ djkdj foospuk vk[;k rhu izfr;ksa esa "kklu dks miyC/k djkus dk d'V djsaA layXud: mijksDrkuqlkj Hkonh;] lq/khj flag pkSgku mi lfpo
8. The letter / order dated 12.06.2013 by means of which the investigation in [CASE NUMBER] has been transferred from Civil Police, [ENTITY] to Economic Offence Wing (EOW) is under challenge in the present writ petition.
9. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that Smt. [ENTITY] was an accused and as such she had no right to choose the investigating agency, that the order dated 12.06.2013 was a non speaking order, that the order dated 12.6.2013 was passed on account of political interference.
10. On the other hand, Shri [ENTITY], learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 11 has inter-alia submitted that the SSP, [ENTITY] was biased against respondent no. 11 and her husband and they apprehended that there would not be a fair investigation by the local police and as such there could not be any objection to the investigation by EOW, an independent investigating agency.
11. Heard Shri [ENTITY], Advocate assisted by Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Shri [ENTITY], learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri [ENTITY] learned counsel for respondent no. 11
12. We are of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be allowed for more than one reason which we are going to enumerate hereinafter.
13. A perusal of order dated 12.06.2013 would show that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned for transferring the investigation to the Economic Offence Wing. It is so well settled that even while taking administrative decision the authority concerned is obliged to record reasons. Recording of reasons operates as a valid restrain on any possible arbitrary exercise of administrative power. The reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision makers on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that transfer of investigation from local police to CB-CID by a non-speaking order cannot be sustained. The order dated 12.06.2013 by means of which the investigation has been transferred to the Economic Offence Wing is a totally non speaking order and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
14. Admittedly, the investigation in [CASE NUMBER] has been transferred to Economic Offence Wing, at the behest of accused - Smt. [ENTITY]. The practice of transferring the investigation from one investigating agency to the other at the behest of the accused has been deprecated time and again by the Apex Court as well as this court.
15. In the case of [PRECEDENT] the Apex Court has categorically held that the accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with.
16. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. Paragraph 10 of the said report is as follows:
"10. It has been held by this Court in [PRECEDENT] (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice."
17. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) has held that ordinarily the accused has no locus standi in choosing the investigating agency which can conduct the investigation. In paragraph 14 of the said report this court has held as follows:
"Invariably the transfers had been effected on the recommendation of ministers and other political functionaries. These rampant transfers at the instance of the accused are in the teeth of the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], which says ordinarily the accused has no locus standi in choosing the investigating agency which can conduct the investigation."
18. Again in the case of [PRECEDENT] a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order by means of which the investigation was transferred from Local Police to CB-CID at the behest of the accused and directed the matter to be investigated expeditiously by the local police. In paragraph no. 4 of the aforesaid judgment this court observed as follows:
"It is pointed out that the said order was passed on an application made by an accused, which was endorsed by [ENTITY], M.L.C. by his letter dated 9.7.2009. In our view, this is wholly a mala fide use of power by State Government. In [PRECEDENT], it has been held that the investigation should normally not be transferred at the instance of the accused. The same view is also taken in [PRECEDENT]. In the compounding situation of the present case, we find that this is at the instance of the M.L.C. that the said transfer has been made, which is a blatant mala fide exercise of power."
19. In the case reported in [PRECEDENT]. a Division Bench of this court quashed the order transferring the investigation of the case from Civil Police to CB-CID at the behest of the father of the accused. In paragraph 7 of the said report this court observed as follows:
"The State Government has taken a decision to transfer the investigation of this case from Civil Police to CB-CID on the application moved by [ENTITY], who is the father of the accused [ENTITY], the settled position of law is that the investigation of a criminal case may not be done at the choice of the accused, in the present case no reasons has been shown to transfer the investigation from Civil Police to CB-CID, even the guidelines framed by the State Government itself have not been followed in transferring the investigation of this case to CB-CID."
20. In yet another case, [PRECEDENT]. this Court held as under:-
"It is a case in which issue of transferring the investigation from Civil Police to C.B.C.I.D. is involved. The impugned order dated 30.10.2012 shows that it is a case in which the investigation has been transferred from Civil Police to C.B.C.I.D. on the application given by the accused [ENTITY]. No reason of trasnferring the investigation from Civil Police to C.B.C.I.D. has been shown therein whereas the State Government has issued a circular mentioning therein the grounds for transferring the investigation from Civil Police to C.B.C.I.D. Any of the grounds mentioned in the circular dated 15.09.1995 is not applicable in the present case. The hidden object of transferring the investigation to C.B.C.I.D. is to stall the action by the local police or to make the arrest of the offender."
21. The list of cases where investigation was transferred from the local police to CB-CID only at the behest of the accused has been set aside is endless. It is, thus, no more res integra that ordinarily, without there being anything more, the investigation cannot be transferred from one investigating agency to the other at the behest of the accused.
22. The fact that the investigation in the present case has been transferred from Local Police, [ENTITY] to the Economic Offence Wing at the instance of the accused is not in dispute. In view of the settled legal position the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
23. Despite repeated opportunities to the opposite parties to place on record the material on the basis of which the investigation in the present case was transferred to Economic Offence Wing, nothing has been placed on record. As already mentioned above, the SSP, [ENTITY] in his report dated 4.06.2013 has specifically stated that there was no justification / need to transfer the investigation from the local police. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that there was no material before the State Government to transfer the investigation from local police.
24. Moreover, we find from the record that the process for transfer of investigation in [CASE NUMBER] from Local Police, [ENTITY] was initiated on the letter dated 16.05.2013 of Shri [ENTITY]. In fact, all the notings have been made on the said letter. We further find that Shri [ENTITY], Minister in Uttar Pradesh Government, who has no role in the matter has directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to get the matter investigated in accordance with the request of Shri [ENTITY] and on the said order of Shri [ENTITY], comments were sought from SSP, [ENTITY] and thereafter the impugned order dated 12.06.2013 transferring the investigation to EOW was passed.
25. We further find that in the representation alleged to have been made by Smt. [ENTITY] for transfer of investigation from local police, she had requested that the case be transferred to CB-CID. Shri [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY] had also recommended for investigation by CB-CID but by the impugned order the investigation in the present case has been transferred to the Economic Offence Wing.
26. On 04.09.2013 this Court passed an order directing the Principal Secretary Home, U.P. to file an affidavit disclosing the reason which warranted the transfer of the investigation from the regular local police to the Economic Offence Wing at the request of accused Smt. [ENTITY] and one State Minister.
27. In pursuance of order dated 04.09.2013 Shri [ENTITY], Principal Secretary (Home Department), Government of U.P., Lucknow has filed a short counter affidavit. Along with said affidavit he has annexed a G.O. dated 18.09.1972 in which he has explained the necessity to establish the Economic Offence Wing. In the said short counter affidavit Shri [ENTITY] has also mentioned the reason as to why the investigation in the present case was transferred to the Economic Offence Wing. Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit is being quoted below:
"6. That the instant case relates to a dispute regarding very expensive real estate and the land is situate in the heart of a densely populated and sensitive city like [ENTITY], and keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and counter allegations, it was decided to transfer the investigation to the E.O.W."
28. As per G.O. dated 18.09.1972 the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) is a part of CID and is a separate Specialized Investigation Branch of U.P. Police. The relevant portion of the G.O. dated 18.09.1972 is being quoted below:-
"vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx ds iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd ds v/khu LFkkfir vkfFkZd vfHklwpuk rFkk vuqla/kku bdkbZ dk eq[; laca/k ,sls vkfFkZd vijk/kks ls gksxk ftudk fo'ks"k egRo gks ;k ftudk flyflyk nwj&nwj rd gks vkSj ftudk jkT; ds jktLoksa ij izHkko iM+sA ;g bdkbZ eq[;r% /kks[kk/kM+h] tkylkth] feF;kx<+u diV] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx] djksa rFkk mRiknu 'kqYd dk vioapu] t[khjsckth] rLdjh] pksjcktkjh vkSj LVkdksa rFkk 'ks;jksa esa onuh;rh ls pkyckth] vkfn ls lacaf/kr ,sls ekeyksa ds ckjsa esa dk;Zokgh djsxh tks mlds ikl ljdkj ds xksiu foHkkx }kjk Hksts tk;saxs"
29. From a perusal of the G.O. dated 18.09.1972 we find that Economic Offence Wing was constituted to conduct investigation and prosecution of cases of cheating, fraud and misappropriation of Government money concerning the departments of Forest, Transport, Food and Civil Supplies, Local Bodies, Industries, Excise, Agriculture, Panchayati Raj, Minor Irrigation, Sales Tax. However, the Government can also entrust this agency with cases concerning other departments and private persons, depending upon the ramification of the economic offences committed.
30. Thus, it is absolutely clear that only the cases which can be termed as "economic offence" can be referred for investigation to the EOW. By no stretch of imagination the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused in the present case can be said to be covered by G.O. dated 18.09.1972. It is not the case of the State that the present case relates to cheating, fraud or misappropriation of Government money. Merely because the dispute relates to a very expensive real estate and the land in dispute is situated in the heart of densely populated city i.e. [ENTITY] as alleged in the short counter affidavit dated 27.09.2013 filed on behalf of the State Government the investigation in the present case could not have been transferred to Economic Offence Wing. Moreover, the reason indicated in paragraph no. 6 of the short counter affidavit mentioned above is not borne out from record and appears to be an afterthought.
31. The Government Order dated 15.9.1995 lays down the conditions which are to be satisfied, before an order for entrusting investigation of a criminal case to the CB-CID may be passed. The four conditions laid down in the G.O. dated 15.9.1995 are as under:
1. The nature of the crime is so complicated and involved that it is not possible for the local police to properly investigate the case.
2. The crime has international, inter - State or interdivision ramifications.
3. The local conditions are such due to which it has become difficult for the civil police to investigate the case fairly.
4. Such conditions have arisen due to which a doubt is created in the mind of general public that the local police is not investigating the case fairly.
32. The conditions no. 1 to 3 of G.O. dated 15.09.1995 did not exist in the present case. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the opposite party no.11 has vehemently submitted that SSP, [ENTITY] was biased against Smt. [ENTITY] and her husband and as such for a fair investigation, the case was transferred to EOW. The learned counsel has submitted that in the facts of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
33. To appreciate the argument of Shri [ENTITY] it would be prudent to examine the veracity of the allegation of bias made by Smt. [ENTITY] against the SSP, [ENTITY] in her representation dated 27.05.2013. The relevant portion of the representation dated 27.05.2013 is being quoted below:
"mDr iqfyfl;k dk;Zokgh dks ns[krs gq;s izkfFkZuh dks iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd okjk.klh iqfyl iz'kklu Hkw ekfQ;kvksa ls feydj izkfFkZuh rFkk mlds ifr ds fo:) ,sls gh QthZ ] eqdnesa yxkdj mls ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls ijs'kku djuk pkgrk gSA ftlls izkfFkZuh ,oa mlds ifr mDr tehu ls gV tk;sA izkfFkZuh ;g Hkh crkuk vko';d le>rh gS fd mDr Hkw ekfQ;kvksa ds fo:) fofHkUu xEHkhj /kkjkvksa esa fofHkUu Fkkuksa esa eqdnes iathd`r gSA iajrq ftyk iqfyl iz'kklu muds fo:) dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh ugh dj jgk gSA ;g Hkh voxr djkuk lehphu gksxk fd ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd okjk.klh ds Nk= thou dk vf/kdka'k le; okjk.klh esa gh O;rhr gqvk gSA vr% izkfFkZuh dks iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd og ;k rks iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj ;k fQj fojksf/k;ksa ls feydj bu QthZ eqdneksa dh fu"i{k tkWp ugh djk;asxsA"
34. We find that in her representation dated 27.05.2013, Smt. [ENTITY] has stated that the SSP, [ENTITY] had spent most of the time of his student life in [ENTITY] and as such Smt. [ENTITY] was fully confident that the SSP, [ENTITY], either on account of bias or in connivance with her opponents, would not get the matter investigated fairly.
35. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial investigation is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. In [PRECEDENT], in paragraph 7 the apex court has held that the purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. It was observed that the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises.
36. In order to substantiate her case of bias, Smt. [ENTITY] has relied upon a complaint alleged to have been made by her before the Human Rights Commission, New Delhi alleging bias on the part of SSP, [ENTITY]. The complaint was made to Human Rights Commission on 09.06.2013, after almost one month after the petitioner failed in her attempt to get an order in her favour in the writ petition preferred by her for quashing of the FIR. We find that in [CASE NUMBER] preferred by Smt [ENTITY] for quashing the FIR dated 24.04.2013 in [CASE NUMBER], neither the SSP, [ENTITY] was impleaded by name nor any allegation of bias was leveled against him. It was thereafter that the petitioner moved the alleged representation before the Chief Minister for transfer of investigation to CB-CID in which she leveled allegations of bias against the SSP, [ENTITY]. She thereafter approached Shri [ENTITY] who wrote a letter dated 16.05.2013 to the Chief Minister for transfer of investigation. When, perhaps, she thought nothing was forthcoming she made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. The complaint dated 09.06.2013 is as vague as it can be and does not inspire any confidence. Thus, it is apparent that the allegation of bias against the SSP, [ENTITY] was nothing but an after thought and as such Smt. [ENTITY] does not derive any benefit from the same.
37. In any case, the allegation of bias leveled by Smt [ENTITY] against SSP, [ENTITY] is absolutely vague. She has not stated as to why the SSP, [ENTITY] was biased against her and her husband. She has also not indicated as to with whom the SSP, [ENTITY] had connived against her. Moreover, we find that Smt. [ENTITY] is also not sure as to whether it was on account of the alleged bias on the part of SSP, [ENTITY] or his alleged connivance with her opponents that she was apprehending that the local police would not investigate the case fairly. Smt. [ENTITY] has not produced any material, whatsoever, either before the authorities or before this court, to establish the alleged nexus between the SSP, [ENTITY] and her alleged opponents. Allegations of bias and mala fide conduct are easy to make but not always as easy to prove. The SSP, [ENTITY] has in his report specifically stated that the matter was being investigated fairly and there was no justification or reason to transfer the investigation from local police.
38. It is trite to say that there must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existence of bias and malafide motive which may result in miscarriage of justice. The burden to prove bias or malafide was heavily upon Smt. [ENTITY], which she has miserably failed to discharge. There is nothing on record from which this Court can infer that the SSP, [ENTITY] was biased against Smt. [ENTITY] or that the latter was in collusion with the alleged opponents of the former. Thus, the apprehension of Smt. [ENTITY], that the local police would not have made fair investigation is totally unfounded.
39. Our experience shows that whenever a case is entrusted to the CB-CID, its investigation takes a long time and further till the conclusion of investigation, no effort is made to arrest the accused and as a consequence thereof, they roam about freely for number of years. Delay in investigation of a case is normally to the advantage of the accused. We are of the opinion that all round effort has been made by Smt. [ENTITY] to stop the investigation by the local police, [ENTITY].
40. Thus, there was no material before the authorities concerned on the basis of which the investigation in [CASE NUMBER] could have been transferred to the EOW. The impugned order dated 12.06.2013 has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. Even the guideline framed by the State Government itself for transfer of investigation to EOW has not been followed in this case. The order dated 12.06.2013 has been passed merely at the diktat of political masters and is thus absolutely malafide. The order dated 12.06.2013 cannot be sustained and has to go.
41. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.11 that that against the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 passed in [CASE NUMBER], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. a Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Apex Court and on 05.07.2013 the Apex Court has stayed the arrest of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER]. The learned counsel has submitted that the proceedings of this court should be stayed till the disposal of the said SLP. The request made by the learned counsel for respondent no. 11 is liable to be rejected. The question involved in the present writ petition is different from the one engaging the attention of the Apex Court and there is no bar in deciding this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of subject to any order passed by the Apex Court.
42. In view of the discussion made above this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2013 by means of which the investigation has been transferred to the Economic Offence Wing is set aside.
43. The investigation of the above mentioned case shall now be done by the local police of district [ENTITY]. The Inspector, Economic Offence Wing, [ENTITY] Sector, [ENTITY] who is conducting the investigation of this case, is directed to hand over all the records of the present case to SSP, [ENTITY] within two weeks from this date. The SSP, [ENTITY] shall appoint an Investigating Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The new Investigating Officer appointed by the SSP, [ENTITY] is directed to investigate all aspects of the case expeditiously and file a report to the court concerned having jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date of taking over of the investigation from the Economic Offence Wing.
44. Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned Additional Government Advocate within two days for necessary compliance.
Order Date:- 10.02.2014 Pradeep/-