AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Ray, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants at length. Perused the application along with its annexures.
It has been contended that Petitioner No. 1 is a practising advocate in Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India and the sister of Petitioner No. 1 Ms. Purnima Agarwal is also a practising advocate of Delhi High Court. The father of Petitioner No. 1, Er. R.K. Agarwal is in Government Service and at present he is functioning as Superintending Engineer, U.P. Electricity Board and is a public servant under the definition of Indian Penal Code. The mother of Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Savitri Devi Agarwal is a chronic heart patient and is under the treatment of Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. It has been contended that Respondent No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal took her belongings and went to her parents house with two months pregnancy.
It has been contended that O. P. No. 2 made an F.I.R. No. 210 dated 19.9.1996 which was registered at Kotwali Roorkee u/s 498A/323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D. P. Act. Zerox copy of the injury of O. P. No. 2 has been annexed with this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.
The whole contention of the applicants/Petitioners is that just to pressurize them for undue actions as desired by the opposite parties, O. P. No. 2 lodged the F.I.R., though, in fact, there was no torture either mental or physical to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal was although treated very affectionately with warmness by the Petitioner No. 1. The family members of opposite party No. 2 influenced her to take the recourse of lodging the F.I.R. on concocted story on the ground that the alleged incident took place within the district of Ghaziabad. However, in view of the provisions of Sections 173 and 177, Code of Criminal Procedure, the matter should be tried at Ghaziabad. It has also been contended that the I. O. Roorkee should not be allowed to make investigation as the Petitioners apprehend that investigation may not be fair and there could not be any reason to believe that police officers at Ghaziabad are incompetent and biased to O. P. No. 2.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit and submitted that O. P. No. 2 never conceived or there was no occasion for illegal termination of pregnancy. She was ill-treated and tortured by the Petitioner No. 1 and his family members and she was assaulted physically and turned out from her husband''s place and the allegations made in the F.I.R. are true and the State Government has every authority to get the matter investigated by any police officer under the State Governments control.
Learned A.G.A. drew my attention to the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Khilari Sharma, the Officer posted at P. S. Roorkee, District Hardwar and submitted that the trial should be held at Ghaziabad in view of the provisions of Sections 173 and 177, Code of Criminal Procedure but State Government is competent enough to get the matter investigated by any Officer under the control of the Government of U.P. and the objection regarding the legality of investigation made by the Officer of Roorkee is not maintainable in law.
Considering the submissions and also perusing the decisions referred to by the learned advocates for the Petitioners, it is held that unless case is transferred from one district to another u/s 407, Code of Criminal Procedure by the Hon''ble High Court or by Hon''ble Supreme Court u/s 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, the case ought to be tried at Ghaziabad. It is also held that the State Government has the power to get the investigation made by any officer under the control of the State Government. If the Government thinks that the matter may be investigated by the C.B., C.I.D., then the Government may take appropriate steps for the same. Here no special reason has been given by the State Government as to why this matter is being enquired by the police officer at Roorkee. In the circumstances, this application stands allowed in part and case No. 210/96, u/s 498A/323, I.P.C. and 3/4, D. P. Act, P. S. Kotwali, Roorkee, Hardwar gets transferred to the Court of learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad and the records of the case should be transferred to the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad and if the applicants surrender before the learned court below at Ghaziabad in connection with the above case and pray for bail, then in that event that should be considered and disposed of very expeditiously according to law.
Be it noted that this Court is not making any observation regarding the merit of the case but it is made clear that the Court concerned is to provide opportunity to the applicant of being heard if they pray for bail.
It is further ordered that the arrest of the applicants shall remain stayed till 30.3.1997 but they must be available to the I.O. concerned for interrogation in connection with the above case.
A copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the applicants against payments of usual charge within two days.
A copy of this order be sent down to the D.I.G. of Police concerned to which Roorkee is situated with a direction to ensure fair investigation in the case.
A copy of this order be also sent to the D.I.G. of the Range to which district Ghaziabad appertains for necessary action, if any.
Thus, this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure stands finally disposed of.