IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2010 MR. FRANK JULIO FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.,. ... Respondent Mr. R. Satardekar with Ms. Felicia Fernandes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondents nos.1 to 3. Mr. Mahesh S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 9th August, 2010 P.C.: We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents nos.1 to 3 and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5. The prayer in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to refer the investigation of Crime Case No.19/2010 registered with Old Goa Police Station to the Central Bureau of Investigations or any other investigating agency. 2. On 5/12/2009, the petitioner filed a complaint before the second respondent alleging that the fourth respondent, who is Inspector of Police attached to Old Goa Police Station committed serious offences of cognizable nature on 25/11/2009. Allegation made by the petitioner is that the fourth respondent threatened the petitioner to implicate him in drug/narcotic case. It is alleged that the fourth respondent removed from the person of the petitioner his gold chain weighing 50 gms approximately worth Rs.85,000/-. Another allegation is that the fourth respondent removed from the petitioner his gold bracelet worth Rs.1,52,000/- and gold finger ring worth Rs.18,700/-. Further allegation is that the fourth respondent removed from the petitioner his purse containing cash currency notes of Rs.4,920/- and Rs.25,000/-. Further allegation is that the petitioner was illegally detained in police lockup though he had not committed any cognizable offence. Lastly, it is alleged that fourth respondent snapped photographs of the petitioner without authority of law. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the fourth respondent is an Inspector of Police, investigation is being carried out in a casual manner. He invited our attention to the averments made in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.73/2010. He pointed out that the third respondent (Superintendent of Police, North Goa) had given an interview on 13/02/2010 to a television channel "Goa 365", in which he made a public announcement that the complaint dated 5/12/2009 filed by the petitioner was false. He submitted that as this is the stand taken by the Superintendent of Police, obviously, there is no possibility of investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer in free and fair manner. He invited our attention to the progress reports filed by the Sub-divisional Police Officer as regards to the investigation into the alleged offence. He pointed out that instead of investigating into the offences committed by the fourth respondent, the officers are indulging in investigation regarding the assets and bank accounts of the petitioner and his other relatives. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court dated 17/02/2010 in the case of State of West Bengal and Others V/s. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6249-6250 of 2001. He pointed out that the State Police Complaints Authority, Goa has rejected the complaint against the fourth respondent and therefore, the Police Officers of the State will not carry out proper investigation. He submitted that considering the facts brought on record and considering that the investigation must inspire credibility and confidence, this is the case where this Court will have to exercise writ jurisdiction by transferring the investigation to CBI or some other agency. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the reports submitted as regards progress of the investigation. He also invited our attention to the affidavit dated 13th April, 2010 of Mr. Arvind Gawas, the Superintendent of Police in which it is stated that the third respondent who was the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, has been since transferred and the said deponent has taken the charge of the said post. It must be noted here that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the statement in interview on a television channel is as against Mr. Bosco George, who was the then Superintendent and now he has been replaced by Mr. Arvind Gawas. with effect from 31st March, 2010. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is taken care of by transfer of the concerned Superintendent of Police. 5. We have perused the reports of the investigations. Various steps have been taken in investigation as disclosed by the reports. The grievance is that the Police are investigating into the assets and bank accounts of the petitioner and his relatives. Writ Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation and it is not for the writ Court to direct in what manner investigation should be carried out. Since submissions are made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it must be noted that allegation by the petitioner is that he was possessing a gold chain weighing 50 gms worth Rs.85,000/-, a gold bracelet worth Rs.1,52,000/-, a gold finger ring worth Rs.18,700/- and currency notes in the sum of Rs.29,920/-. Therefore, the Police are perhaps ascertaining whether the petitioner was possessing the aforesaid property. In the circumstances, we cannot say that what is being done by the Police is something which is illegal. The decision of the Police Complaint Authority is in the context of allegations of misconduct against the fourth respondent. The observations made by the said Authority are only prima facie observations and the investigation will have to be carried out independently. 6. As far as power of the writ Court to transfer the investigation to agency like CBI is concerned, the law is very well settled. The Apex Court has held that such order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations 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. 7. As of today, from the material placed on record, we find that no case has been made out to exercise the extra-ordinary power of transferring the investigation. 8. Hence, at this stage, no interference is called for. We direct that the investigations shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Subject to what is observed above, petition is disposed of. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH