1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.102 OF 2010 Shri Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.102 OF 2010 Shri. Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi. .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents. AND Shri Parambir Singh. Intervenor. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.102 OF 2010 Mr.Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents. AND Mr.Subhash Shankar Kenjale. ..Intervenor. Mr.Nitin Pradhan, i/b. Mr. Rizwan G. Merchant, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General a/w. Mr. P. A. Pol, Public Prosecutor a/w. Mr. Y .M. Nakhawa, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Subodh Desai, Advocate, for the applicant/intervenor in Criminal Application No.27/10. T 2 Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, i/b. Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate for the intervenor in Criminal Application No.30 of 2010. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2010 ORAL ORDER : ( Per D.B.Bhosale, J.) 1. Heard Mr.Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ravi Kadam, learned Advocate General for the State, Mr.Gupte, learned senior counsel for the intervenor in Criminal Application No.27/2010, and Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the intervenor in Criminal Application No.30/2010. 2. Mr.Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in the Court, addressed the Court only on prayer (C) in the Petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the entire material placed before us. 3. The prayer (C) in the Writ Petition reads thus : "(C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Order of the DGP, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, transferring the supervision of the inquiry by the Government of Maharashtra, to the office of the Addl. DGP, ATS, Maharashtra State, Mumbai;" 4. The petitioner was one of the accused in the NDPS 3 Spl.Case No.80 of 2008. After the trial, he was acquitted of all charges under the NDPS Act,1985. He was prosecuted on the allegations that he was found in possession of three vials of cocaine. While the aforesaid case was pending, the petitioner moved an application, bearing Private Complaint No.1 of 2006, before the Special Court alleging that the narcotic substance found in his possession was planted by some police officer in his house and he was falsely implicated as an accused in the aforesaid NDPS case. Initially, the learned Spl.Judge had ordered investigation of his complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C through a Senior Intelligence Officer. The investigation in pursuance of the order under section 156(3) was, thereafter, directed to be handed over to the State C.I.D by the State Government and this Court, vide order dated 5.12.2009 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2921 of 2009, endorsed the said decision of the State Government and directed the State C.I.D to continue with the investigation and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months. 5. It appears that to ensure that the inquiry/investigation is completed within the time frame by the State CID, the State Government, vide its order dated 16.1.2010, directed it to be conducted under the supervision of Shri K.P.Raghuwanshi, Addl. 4 DGP (ATS), Mumbai. Though in the petition or in the prayer there is no direct reference made to this order, the prayer (c) is directed against this order. 6. Mr Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after the order dated 5.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2921 of 2009 by the Division Bench (B.H.Marlapalle and R.Y.Ganoo, JJ), the order of the State Government directing the Addl.DGP (ATS), Maharashtra State, Mumbai, to supervise, would also amount to interference in the investigation by the State CID. He submitted that an order of supervision of inquiry/investigation by the office of the Addl.DGP (ATS) will definitely cause irreparable harm, injury and consequent set back to the investigation by the State CID. In order to elaborate, Mr Pradhan submitted that one Parambir Singh, who was earlier closely associated with the ATS, was responsible to frame the petitioner in the NDPS case, is likely to interfere with the investigation and that he would know all investigation and material collected by the State CID against him and the other accused, which would undoubtedly affect the investigation. In other words, he submitted that the supervision of the investigation by the ATS is likely to scuttle the inquiry/ investigation since Parambir Singh is capable of influencing the 5 investigation with his active network in the ATS. In the petition, specific allegations are made against Parambir Singh. Our attention was invited to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the petition, wherein the aforesaid apprehension has been expressed by the petitioner. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the petition read thus : 21.The Petitioner says and submits that from the above Affidavit, it appears that vide an order, passed by the then DGP, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, Shri S.S. Virk, the supervision of inquiry was transferred to the Addl. DGP, ATS, Maharashtra State, Mumbai; The Petitioner says and submits that such an Order of supervision of inquiry by the office of DGP, ATS, Maharashtra State, Mumbai is capable of causing irreparable harm, injury and a consequent set back to the investigation by the State CID, Mumbai, since Shri Paramveer Singh, against whom the State CID, has already submitted an interim report dated 9th October, 2009, was earlier posted with the ATS, M.S. Mumbai, as an Additional Commissioner of Police and consequently, was an integral part of the functioning of the ATS, M.S. Mumbai. The Petitioner says and submits that the inquiry and investigation being conducted against Police Personnel, are required to be confidential, and reporting of these investigations to the office of ATS, M.S. Mumbai, for the purpose of supervision, will have the effect of scuttling investigations, and causing prejudice to the investigations, in as much as through the network of the ATS, M.S. Mumbai, all investigations and material collected, could be known to Shri Paramveer Singh, thereby severely affecting the investigations, and rendering the entire process of inquiry and investigation a farce; 22. The Petitioner submits that there is already evidence collected by State CID, of the interest of Shri Paramveer Singh, in the present matter and its investigations, which evidence has been discussed in 6 detail in the interim report of the State CID dated 9.10.2009. Consequently, it is not advisable to cause the said supervision of the investigations by ATS, M.S. lest an attempt is made to scuttle the said investigations and help Mr.Paramveer Singh in the matter, so that he gets a clean chit in the inquiry and investigations; The Petitioner says and submits that Mr.Paramveer Singh has the capability of influencing the investigations with his active network in the ATS; In fact, there is intrinsic evidence which the Petitioner takes liberty to point out to the court, that the said Paramveer Singh, has already started to influence the investigations by the State CID, and has been doing things, of which he had threatened the Petitioner, for which the Petitioner had already complained to the State CID. These acts and things by Mr.Paramveer Singh, amount to interference in the administration of justice, by influencing and causing the electronic media of television channels, to air and telecast, material which is not only defamatory and malicious to the Petitioner, but he has taken the assistance of retired police officers to depose on air against the Petitioner, trying to suggest that the Petitioner is involved in the entire case as a whole and not only the 3 vials shown as seized from his residence; The footage on TV 9 on the 1st of January, 2010 suggested that the investigations were not properly conducted by the officers and that the Petitioner was acquitted because of the assistance given to him by these officers; The Petitioner says and submits that this information to the media of TV 9, thereby suggesting that the Petitioner was acquitted from the case because of connivance with the police, could not have been given either by Subhash Kenjale of M.B. Gatade, since they are already retired officers, and the Petitioner has accused them of having conspired to plant the 3 vials on him; Moreover, they being the investigating officers, would not want to suggest that they have connived with the Petitioner and helped him in getting an acquittal; This entire operation was apparently master minded by Mr.Paramveer Singh himself only to divert the investigations being conducted by the State CID in the instant case; Consequently, looking to the potentiality of the said officer, it is a rather dangerous suggestion to cause 7 the investigations to be supervised by ATS, M.S. Mumbai; The Petitioner says and submits that he has no faith and trust in the supervision of investigations by ATS, M.S. Mumbai, as there is room for doubt and suspicion, with Mr.Paramveer Singh being a part of the ATS, M.S. in the past; Moreover, the interest shown by the officers of ATS, M.S. in supporting the application 385 of 2009, filed in the Court of the Ld. Special Judge under NDPS Act, 1985, under the name of Subhash Kenjale seeking transfer of investigations under sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. also to the ATS, M.S. speaks volumes about the interest of ATS in the said investigations; The Petitioner apprehends that if the inquiry and investigations are supervised by ATS, M.S. then all information relating to progress of investigations may be revealed to Mr.Paramveer Singh, through his network of officers who worked with him in the past in ATS. The Petitioner says and submits that he has already complained to the State CID, about Mr. Paramveer Singh, threatening the Petitioner to use the system against him if he does not withdraw the complaint; The Petitioner apprehends that Shri Paramveer Singh, who has caused to threaten the Petitioner, may not only scuttle the investigations, but by use of his contacts in the system, as he claims, may cause the reopening of the trial of the Petitioner and subject the Petitioner to humiliation and if possible conviction on the strength of got up evidence, and also to cause the Petitioner to be once again falsely implicated in similar case under the NDPS Act, 1985, and to further cause the Petitioner to be prosecuted for conniving with the State CID officers, for the interim report dated 9th October 2009 submitted by State CID to Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner apprehends that as threatened, by using the system, which Shri Paramveer Singh, claims to control, the Petitioner may be subjected to unnecessary harassment and humiliation through various other investigative agencies;" 7. Shri Parambir Singh is an IPS officer. He has filed intervention application and has denied all the allegations made 8 by the petitioner against him. 8. Then, Mr Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 and submitted that the Magistrate (Special Court in the present case), who orders investigation under section 156 (3) of Cr P C, is empowered to ensure a proper investigation including monitoring the same and, therefore, the order in the present case directing the DGP, ATS to supervise the investigation and/or to monitor the investigation, was unnecessary apart from the fact that it amounts to interference in the powers of the court and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 9. We have perused the order dated 16.1.2010 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. The order reads thus ;- “Please refer to your letter No.DGP/22/CR No.17/2005/Kanjele/348/09 dated 30.12.2009 regarding investigation of the complaint of Salil Chaturvedi as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay. In this connection letter No.ADGP/CID/PA/717/2009 dated 09.12.2009 of the Additional D.G.P, CID, Maharashtra state, Pune addressed to you and a copy to me may be seen. 9 2. The State Government by its letter dated 21.07.2009 has directed inqury/investigation by the State CID as per the assurance given in assembly Session held in June, 2009. Thereafter in the context of allegations made against the supervisory officers of the State CID, by Government letter dated 26.10.2009. it was suggested that investigation of this case may be kept with CID, however, supervision may be given to a Senior ADG. Accordingly you have already directed K.P.Raghuwnshi, Additional DGP, ATS to start the process of inquiry. In the petition filed by Salil Chaturvedi, the Hon'ble High Court has noted the above facts and disposed of the petition by its order dated 5.12.2009, in view of the decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra. 3. In view of the above, the State CID may be asked to conduct the investigation under the supervision of Shri K.P.Raghuwanshi, ADG (ATS), Mumbai and complete the investigation preferably within six months as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. “ 10. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that Mr K.P.Raghuwanshi, Addl.DGP, ATS, was ordered to supervise the investigation/inquiry and insofar as the actual investigation/inquiry is concerned, the State CID was asked to conduct the same and complete it within six months as directed by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2009. 11. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, so also from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the petition proceeds on the 10 assumption that the office of the DGP, ATS has been ordered to supervise the investigation in the present case. This is not correct. The order dated 16.1.2010, appointing Shri Raghuwanshi for supervising the inquiry/investigation, clearly shows that it was not the office of the DGP, ATS but Shri K.P.Raghuwanshi, DGP, ATS in his individual capacity was appointed as an officer to supervise the investigation. When it was so revealed, Mr Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner also objected the order appointing Mr Raghuwanshi as an officer to supervise the investigation on the same grounds as mentioned in the writ petition. In view thereof, when we made specific query to Mr Pradhan as to whether the petitioner has made any allegations against Mr Raghuwanshi as an individual in the petition, his reply was in the negative. 12. It appears that even before issuing the order dated 16.1.2010, the letter dated 28.10.2009 was issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai addressed to Shri K.P.Raghuwanshi informing him about the Government order asking him to supervise the inquiry/investigation and further stating that he should ensure completion of the inquiry within time frame and submit the report as desired. 11 13. From perusal of the order dated 16.1.2010 and the letter dated 28.10.2009, it is clear that the appointment of Shri Raghuwanshi was made to ensure completion of the inquiry/investigation within the time stipulated by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2009. 14. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.2921 of 2009 filed by the present petitioner, had issued the following directions: "8. Hence, we direct the State CID, Maharashtra, to continue with the investigation, as entrusted to it by the State Government, and complete the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably within six months. Undoubtedly, on completion of the investigation, the State CID shall submit the report to the Special Court." 15. It appears that after disposal of the Writ Petition, an application, bearing Criminal Application No.27 of 2010, was moved by the petitioner before the Division Bench (Smt.Ranjana Desai & Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ.) seeking clarification of the order dated 5th December, 2009 and since the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench (B.H. Marlapalle & R.Y. Ganoo,JJ.), the petitioner was directed to approach the same 12 Court by order dated 29th January, 2010. From this order it appears that the grievance was made that the ATS, Mumbai is investigating the case, which was factually incorrect. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Division Bench (B.H. Marlapalle & R.Y. Ganoo,JJ.) which, vide order dated 2nd March, 2010, rejected the application stating that no clarification or correction is required. 16. It is against this backdrop, to our specific query made to the learned Advocate General, he submitted that Shri .K.P. Raghuwanshi is now transferred as ADG (Maharashtra) and he will continue to supervise the investigation of the case since vide order dated 16.1.2010, he was directed to supervise the investigation in his individual name. As such, he has no connection with the ATS. That apart, Parambir Singh, who was working with the ATS, also came to be transferred in August, 2009 as Inspector General, Kokan Division, Kokan and, therefore, he also has absolutely no connection either with the ATS or with Mr.Raghuwanshi. It is against this background, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer (C) in the Writ Petition and we are satisfied that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the petitioner if Mr.Raghuwanshi continues to supervise the investigation of the case. Moreover, there are no 13 allegations in the Petition against Mr.Raghuwanshi. 17. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) case is concerned, in our opinion, this has no application to the facts of the present case. The appointment of Mr.Raghuwanshi to supervise the inquiry/investigation, in our opinion, would not amount to monitoring the investigation/inquiry and in any case it would not curtail the powers of the court, namely, the Special Court in the present case, under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Court can exercise its powers to ensure a proper investigation including monitoring the same. It is also open to the petitioner to approach the Special Court for appropriate relief/direction in respect of the investigation by the State CID. It is needless to mention that the Special Court has sufficient powers to issue appropriate directions including further investigation as provided for under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the intervenor”s applications are also disposed of. (A.R.Joshi,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 14 15