Surendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

Government for transfer of investigation from the local police to the C.B.C.I.D., but the same was rejected by the Principal Home Secretary on 15th September, 2005. However, on a Writ Petition filed by the said Respondent No.2, Brijesh Mishra, being W.P. No.4411 of 2005, the High Court gave a direction to the C.B.C.I.D. on 29th November, 2005, to investigate further into the case and to submit a report to the Magistrate within a reasonable time. The Magistrate was directed thereafter to deal with the said reports in accordance with law.

3. On 14th March, 2008, the Petitioner questioned the investigation conducted by Shri Sunil Kumar Saxena, Additional S.P., C.B.C.I.D., Kanpur Division, alleging that he was influencing the prosecution witnesses to change their statements in favour of the accused persons. Ultimately, the said Sunil Kumar Saxena submitted his final report on 14th March, 2008, indicating that there were differences in the charge-sheet which had been filed by the local police and the investigation conducted by the C.B.C.I.D. and requested that appropriate action be taken on account of the differences between the two reports.

4. Subsequent thereto, on 22nd August, 2008, the Legal Remembrancer wrote to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh regarding withdrawal of 8 cases against the Respondent No.2 which had been listed in his letter. Within a span of six days of the said letter being sent, on 28th August, 2008, an order was passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., for withdrawal of the said cases without waiting for any response from the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, and without assigning any reason for such an order. Immediately thereafter, on 29th August, 2008, the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application before the Magistrate under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the cases, but before anything further could be done on the said application, further proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh were stayed by this Court on 12th December, 2008.

11. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. While the arrest of the Petitioner may have been stayed by the High Court, the circumstances in which the incident had occurred on 24th June, 2005, coupled with the fact that the Respondent No.2 was returned as an MLA in the same elections, does to some extent justify the apprehension of the Petitioner that the perspective of the prosecution may become polluted. There is no getting away from the fact that the Respondent No.2 is an MLA and that too belonging to the present dispensation. Since justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done, this case, in our view, is an example where the said idiomatic expression is relevant.

12. It would not be proper on our part to dilate on this question further during the pendency of the trial. We are, however, of the view that in order to do fair justice to all the parties, the trial should be held outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, we allow the Transfer Petition and direct that the matter be transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which shall decide the place and the Court before which the trial may be conducted.

13. The Transfer Petition is, therefore, allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs.