State (Union Territory Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands) & Ors vs Deepika Kishan @ Deepika Kishen

Leave is granted to file this appeal without the certified copy subject to the appellants to comply with the necessary formalities.

This writ petition was filed by the sole respondent in this appeal for handing over the investigation of a criminal case lodged against the petitioner under

Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code to an independent investigating agency.

In the complaint it was alleged that the writ petitioner using some fake educational certificates obtained government jobs on contract basis since long.

Whenever anyone makes any complaint before the employer in this regard, she resigns and joins other services. The petitioner using her fake

educational certificates obtained monetary benefits from the government illegally.

The petitioner in this writ petition alleged that the said criminal case had been lodged against her at the behest of her so-called husband who works as

a Sub-Inspector in the police department of Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

It is the case of the petitioner that concealing the fact that he had a legally married wife, the said Sub-Inspector induced her to marry him and enjoyed

physical relationship with her. Petitioner had no idea that there was a subsisting marriage between the said Sub-Inspector with another lady.

The petitioner lodged complaint against the said Sub-Inspector and in spite of order of competent Magistrate, the police declined to take any effective

steps against him and challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the High Court.

Following the case registered against the petitioner, she was arrested and subsequently released on bail. On the same day when the petitioner was

granted bail, the Director General of the relevant police department tweeted about the arrest of the petitioner on Twitter. Allegations were made

indirectly regarding non-consideration by the Court of the materials collected against the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged that she had no confidence in the police as they acted in a biased manner and the unprecedented overaction of the police in

challenging the order of the Magistrate before High Court clearly indicated that they acted in favour of her so-called husband.

The learned Single Judge by an interim order which has been impugned before us took exception to the tweets made by the relevant Director General

of Police.

Learned Single Judge restrained the said police authority temporarily from making any comment over the case in social media till June 22, 2021. The

learned Single Judge further ordered as follows:

“Since the DGP, Andaman & Nicobar Islands is the highest authority of the police, the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Islands is requested

forthwith to engage a competent police officer not below the rank of DSP to investigate into the case till the disposal of the instant writ petition and

such officer will only be answerable to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and no other police officer. It is also pointed out

that such officer must be upright, honest and a man of integrity.

The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within a fortnight and serve a copy of the same to the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

The petitioner is at liberty to file affidavit-in-reply, if any, within one week thereafter.

Matter to appear under the same heading on 22nd June, 2021.â€​

Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, urges before us that the

learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the Chief Secretary of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to engage a competent police officer for

investigating into the F.I.R lodged against the petitioner. He submits that under the Criminal Procedure Code, the case was to be investigated by the

concerned police station or any police authority superior to it. The Chief Secretary has no authority to appoint any police officer to investigate into a

criminal case.

Secondly, it has been urged by Mr. Rao that by the order impugned the investigating officer was made answerable to the concerned Chief Judicial

Magistrate only for the investigation. Such order defies the administrative hierarchy in the police as the investigating officer should act under the

control and supervision of his superior officer.

Mr. Kabir, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent submits that the writ petitioner has been repeatedly harassed by the police.

Though the police did not take any steps to investigate into the complaint lodged by her, they challenged the order of the Magistrate directing

investigation before the High Court. He submits that the order impugned should not be interfered with and unless the investigation is carried out under

the supervision of the High Court, the case against the petitioner would not be investigated in an impartial manner.

Admittedly, in compliance with the impugned order, an officer of Superintendent of Police rank has been appointed to investigate into the case. The

investigation is in progress and at this stage we do not find it proper to interfere with the impugned order as the same may affect the progress of

investigation.

In our view the learned Single Judge intended to ensure that the investigating officer would not be influenced by anyone in conducting his investigation

and would take the investigation to its logical conclusion in a fair and unbiased manner. The order should not be read to understand that the learned

Judge subverted the authority of superior police authorities and vested their jurisdiction upon the relevant Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The investigation should be carried out impartially in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In our view no interference is called for on the ground that the investigating officer has been made answerable to the competent jurisdictional

Magistrate for his investigation.

We do not find any illegality in the order impugned and accordingly the appeal, being MA 15 of 2021 along with the applications being IA No. CAN 1

of 2021 and CAN 2 of 2021 are dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and the learned Single Judge shall dispose of the writ petition on

merit after the affidavits are exchanged.

All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.