Supreme Court Directs CBI To Probe MLA Raja Bhaiya’s Alleged Involvement In The 2013 DSP Murder Case, Says HC Took “Hyper Technical Approach”

In the pertinent matter, it is to be noted that the Special Magistrate through an order dated July 8, 2014, had directed the C.B.I. to conduct further proper investigation. However, the C.B.I. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 approached the High Court to seek invalidation of the order. Pursuant to which the High Court in the impugned order dated November 25, had observed, “…it is evident that order impugned amounts to order for re-investigation of the offence, not further investigation of the offence. Looking at the fact that the local MLA was subjected to polygraph test who voluntarily underwent such test, and both the allegations were thoroughly investigated and no substance was found, this Court finds that impugned order is unsustainable in law as it is not based on facts and law but it is based on assumptions of learned Magistrate.”

Therefore, while directing the Special Magistrate to complete the investigation within a period of three months, a bench of Justice Anirudha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi noted, “In our view, the High Court took a hyper technical approach in the matter, making superfine distinction between re-investigation and further investigation. There does not appear to be any error on the part of learned Special Magistrate in directing further investigation. We have gone through the order of the learned Special Magistrate and find that she had followed the proper course. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and confirm the order of the learned Special Magistrate directing further investigation”.

In the present matter, the appellant was the widow of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was killed in a violent incident on March 2, 2013. As per her complaint which was also the basis of the FIR, the deceased police officer had gone to village Balipur within the district Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh upon receiving information about a shooting incident that had occurred.

The appellant had named several persons for their alleged involvement in her husband’s murder. While had also argued that the police team had abandoned him at the time he was subjected to violence and ultimately murdered.

When the case was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, 2 charge sheets arraigned several persons as accused. In the present case, the appellant’s grievance is about letting off five persons who she had named in her complaint in the final report, who are ‘Gulshan Yadav’, ‘Hariom Srivastava’, ‘Rohit Singh’, ‘Guddu Singh’ and ‘Raghuraj Pratap Singh @ Raja Bhayia’.

Pursuant to which, a protest petition was filed by the appellant before the Special Magistrate and an order directing the C.B.I. to conduct further proper investigation was passed.

Accordingly, the bench observed, “We are not inclined to stall the trial. We have sustained the order of the learned Special Magistrate dated 08.07.2014 directing further investigation. The said case is related to the same incident. In such circumstances, Session Trial No. 239 of 2014 may go on but let no final order be passed until completion of further investigation and outcome thereof is brought before the Court”.

Cause Title: Parveen Azad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.