PETITIONER: R.S. SODHI,ADVOCATE Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 38 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 143 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.This writ petition brought under Article 32 of the
Constitution concerns the incident which had taken place at
Pilibhit on September 12/13, 1991 in which 10 persons were
reported to have been killed in what were described as
,encounters’ between the Punjab Militants and the local
police. The news item in connection therewith appeared in
The Times of India on the basis whereof this petition was
filed. The issue was raised in the Parliament and teams of
MPs belonging to the Congress(1) and BJP also visited the
places of occurrence to make an on-the-spot inquiry. Their
reports are on record. We have also perused the report of
the ACJM, Pilibhit in which it is pointed out that the
identity of the persons killed in the encounters was not
correctly stated. The investigation in regard to the
incident was handed over to an officer of the Inspector
General’s level and we are told that the local police
officers suspected to be concerned with the incidents were
also transferred to enable the officer to carry on the
inquiry unhindered. Subsequently, the State Government also
appointed a one member commission headed by a sitting judge
of the Allahabad High Court to inquire into the matter but
it appears that in some writ petition filed in the High
Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) a stay has been granted
restraining the commission from functioning. Be that as it
may, the fact remains that three incidents in which as many
as 10 lives (now stated to be eleven) were lost had
144
admittedly taken place and the need for an independent
investigation can hardly be disputed. Since the local
police was involved in the said encounters, a request has
been made that an independent agency may be asked to
inquire/investigate into the matter in accordance with the
Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to bringing the
offenders, if any, to book. Mr Sodhi contends that the
investigation may be directed to be carried out by the
Central Bureau of Investigation having regard to the fact
that the accusations are leveled against the local police.
He points out that even the State Government has seen the
need for inquiry by an independent commission. As against
this the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits
that the State Government has taken prompt action in the
matter by appointing a high level officer to inquire into
the incidents and by promptly transferring the concerned
local police so that there may be no possibility of any
tampering or interference by them. He further points out
that the State Government has also taken the next step of
appointing a commission headed by a sitting High Court Judge
to probe the incidents and to arrive at the truth and hence
there is no need for directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate into the matter. In support of
this contention he invited our attention to the observations
made by this Court in Chaitanya Kalbagh v. State of U.P.1 In
that case this Court observed that in the facts and
circumstances presented before it there was an imperative
need of ensuring that the guardians of law and order do in
fact observe the code of discipline expected of them and
that they function strictly as the protectors of innocent
citizens. This Court refrained from saying anything further
in the matter so that no prejudice is caused to anyone in
the course of the inquiry/investigation that may be
undertaken. Counsel emphasised that once the State
Government has shown its bona fides by taking prompt action
in the matter it must be left to the State Government to
complete its function under the Code of Criminal Procedure
without any interference from outside agency. Emphasis was
laid on the observation that matters which properly fall
within the domain of the State Government should be left to
that Government and that Government should be petitioned
first before any interference by the court is called for.
2.We have examined the facts and circumstances leading to
the filing of the petition and the events that have taken
place after the so-called encounters. Whether the loss of
lives was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a
matter which has to be inquired into and investigated
closely. We, however, refrain from making any observation
in that behalf; we should, therefore, not be understood even
remotely to be expressing any view thereon one way or the
other. We have perused the events that have taken place
since the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon
the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we
think that since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the
investigation to an independent agency like the Central
Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the
relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an
independent agency is looking into the matter and. that
would lend the final outcome of the investigation
credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry
out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since
the allegations are against them. It is only with that in
mind that we having thought it both
1 (1989) 2 SCC 314: 1989 SCC (Cri) 363
145
advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of
justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau
of Investigation forthwith and we do hope that it would
complete the investigation at an early date so that those
involved in the occurrences, one way or the other, may be
brought to book. We direct accordingly. In so ordering we
mean no reflection on the credibility of either the local
police or the State Government but we have been guided by
the larger requirements of justice. The writ petition and
the review petition stand disposed of by this order.
146