Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kamlesh And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 8495 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 5111 (22 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(COURT NO. 46)



Crl. Misc. Writ Petition   No. 8495    of 2006

Kamlesh and another  Vs. State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtuza, J.

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

As we have already rejected the petitioners' prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying their arrest on 5.10.06, the petitioners' counsel did not appear. However, we proceed to hear the learned AGA, Sri A.K. Sand as we had also made some general queries and issued general directions by our dated 5.10.2006 which were directed primarily at the investigating officer of Crime No. 960 of 2004, the DGP, U.P. and the Registry of this Court.

At the outset, we must express our strong displeasure and anguish with the manner in which our directions have been ignored, which were intended to make the investigational system more efficient and to revive cases which seemed to have been forgotten or put in the back burner by the investigating officers and the State Government.

On 5.10.2006 we had granted over two months' time to the aforesaid respondents to comply with our directions which insofar as they are relevant for this order were:  

1."The investigating officer is directed to positively conclude the investigation of this case as well as other cases arising out of the same Crime Number, and FIR at case crime No. 960 of 2004, under Sections 419/420/466/468/471/409 IPC, police station Kotwali Azamgarh, district Azamgarh within two months.

2.The case is to be listed again on 7.12.2006. On that date the investigating officer shall be present in Court along with the case diary, indicating the progress of the investigation of this case. He shall also submit an explanation as to why the investigation was not concluded inspite of orders of this Court dated 25.8.04 and 29.3.06 directing him to to conclude the investigation within three months.

3.The Director General of Police, U.P. is directed to submit a status report of the progress of investigation in all cases in different police stations in the State of U.P., or where investigation was entrusted to other agencies such as the CB CID and where orders were passed by this Court for conclusion of investigation within three months or other fixed periods of time, on the next date of listing.

4.The DGP is also directed to issue directions to the S.S.P.s, S.P.s of all districts in U.P to get investigations concluded in all cases in which writ petitions have been filed and are pending in the High Court or have been disposed of, within a fixed time frame, and to submit a compliance report on the next date of listing.

5.The DGP is also directed to obtain information from the police stations, the office of the Government Advocate and the High Court registry about all criminal writs and other cases relating to different kinds of scams, such as scholarship scam as in the present case, scams relating to land deals, arms licenses, etc. and to get the cases relating to each kind of scam clubbed and to get their investigation concluded expeditiously within a fixed time frame. The DGP may submit a report showing the steps taken in compliance with this direction on the next date of listing."

However when the case was listed again on 7.12.2006 the investigating officer was present and he stated that after investigation, he had submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners.

An affidavit of Sri L.P. Misra, Dy. S.P. (Legal Cell), DGP Headquarters, Lucknow, dated 7.12.2006 was also filed on behalf of the State government which contained a circular letter of the DGP dated 21.10.2006 directing the SSPs/SPs/in charge of different districts, to give highest priority to investigations concerning various scams, under the supervision of the said officers, and the same were required to be disposed of by 30.11.2006. A list of such scams was also required to be prepared and weekly review of the matters was directed. By the next date fixed, (i.e. 7.12.2006), reports of the progress of investigations conducted by all the investigating machineries in different districts, including CBCID, Vigilance Department, Economic Offences Wing, were to furnished details to be submitted to the High Court in three proformas which were appended to the DGP's circular dated 21.10.06. The said information was to be collected by 31.10.2006 and sent to the Regional DIG by 3.11.2006 for onward transmission to the DGP Headquarters by 6.11.2006. It was also recommended that the said information should be entered in the computer on the Krishna font for convenience and ready reference.

The three proformas appended to the DGP's circular dated 21.10.2006 required the following information. The first proforma required a progress report of pending investigations, the writ number, name of the parties, time allowed by the High Court for conclusion of the investigation, district, police station, crime number and sections, informant's name, names of the accused, result of the investigation, reasons for the delay in investigation, police station/unit where investigation was pending.

The second proforma, apart from mentioning the details of the writ petition, as directed in the first proforma, required mention of additional facts as to whether the writ petition was pending in the High Court or had been disposed of.

The third proforma required details relating to different kinds of scams, descriptions of different kinds of scams, the writ petition numbers, the High Court order, district, police station, crime number and sections, informant's name, names of the accused, result of the investigation, reasons for the delay in conducting the investigation, police station/agency where investigation was pending.

Sadly it appears that except issuance of the said  circular by the DGP on 21.10.2006, there has been no attempt at implementation of the directions in our order dated 5.10.06, nor does there appear to have been any monitoring of the directions of the DGP's circular by the S.P./SSPs concerned as directed.  

At that stage (i.e. on 7.12.06) as the State Government had sought three months' further time to furnish all the information required by our earlier order dated 5.10.2006, we had granted the said time expressing our hope and trust that on the next date of listing, there would be complete compliance of our earlier order dated 5.10.2006 and all the information sought would be furnished and the investigations monitored or expeditiously concluded as directed by our order and no further time would be sought.

We regret to note that our expectation has been rudely belied again. When the case was taken up today, once again the same prayer for three months' time has been sought and a very short counter affidavit dated 20.3.2007 has been filed.

The learned AGA has submitted that the Registry of the Allahabad High Court had given a list of 118 cases to the DGP with regard to pendency of  cases relating to different scams, which was received in the office of the DGP on 2.12.2006. Actually, on verification the number was found to be 116, out of which in 48 cases charge-sheets had been submitted, in 7 cases final reports had been submitted before the concerned courts under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and 61 cases were still under investigation. A chart at annexure 1 was also appended. He states that the reason for failure to furnish the details sought by the High Court was that the Registry had submitted a list of 302 cases pending before this Court in relation to different scams, only on 12.3.2007, which was received in the office of the DG (Public Grievances) on 14.3.2007 and the circular letter could not be sent because of the impending elections. We are totally dissatisfied with all these explanations and lame excuses given by the State Government. We cannot understand why detailed information as required in the proformas appended to the DGP's circular was not furnished about even the 116 cases of which information had admittedly been furnished by the registry as far back as 2.12.06 to the DGP. inspite of the lapse of 5 ½ months of time after our order dated 5.10.06.  

Moreover we had directed in our order dated 5.10.06 that information about the pendency of writ petitions with orders directing conclusion of investigations within 3 months or other fixed periods, or other writ petitions where although arrests were stayed but no orders had been passed staying investigations or where writ petitions had been finally disposed of, and information relating to different kinds of scams about which writ petitions had been filed were required to be also gathered from the Government Advocate's office and from the different police stations, and efforts made to expeditiously conclude investigations in the matters and to provide this Court about the details of the cases and the progress reports of the investigations. However Sri A.K . Sand learned AGA submitted that there is no proper facility for computerization in the Government Advocate's section, and the records are not being able to be properly maintained because of dearth of resources. There was no explanation why the information of stays of arrest and other High Court orders had not been collected in the long period that had expired since our dated 5.10.06 from the police stations concerned. We therefore reject the prayer of the State government for a grant of a further extension of 3 months time for the case to be taken up next. Grant of such a long period of time en bloc would again result in the matter being put into cold storage till one or two days prior to the listing of the case, as has unfortunately become the practice of the State government. The case shall now be listed every three weeks as this Court directs when progress reports shall be submitted by the senior officer appointed by the DGP, and it shall be ensured that the orders issued by this Court are being strictly complied with and the time schedule for concluding the investigations is being observed. So much time of this Court is wasted because of the failure of the executive and police authorities to discharge their duties that we are forced to rehear and monitor these matters resulting in enormous wastage of the precious time of the Court. These directions have been necessitated because we find a complete failure on the part of the police machinery to ensure that the investigations in grave matters in the nature of scams and even other cases where investigations have not been stayed in writ petitions although there may have been orders staying arrests, are monitored and concluded in a reasonable period of time.

We therefore now direct:

1.The DGP shall appoint an officer of State level jurisdiction such as an ADGP or other officer who shall appear in this Court after 3 weeks on the next date of listing, and who shall be responsible for monitoring and implementing the directions contained in our order dated 5.10.06 and the present order and the DGP's circular dated 21.10.2006, and shall be accountable to this Court.

2.By the next date of listing at least details in the prescribed proforma of the 116 writ petitions relating to different scams whose list was furnished by the registry to the DGP on 2.12.06 shall be given.

3.Progress made and steps taken for complying with the directions in the present order and the order dated 5.10.06, as well as the directions in the DGP's circular dated 21.10.06 shall also be mentioned on the next date of listing.  

4.An outer time limit of three months for complying with the aforesaid orders and DGP's circular as sought by the State is being allowed. However, the case shall be listed every three weeks in accordance with orders that may be passed by this Court from time to time for monitoring compliance of the aforesaid directions relating to identification and preparation of records in the prescribed proforma of different kinds of scams, and for collating information of cases where investigations remain pending in spite of absence of orders restraining investigations, or where orders directing expeditious conclusions of investigations within a fixed or undefined periods of time have been passed. The said information may be obtained from the G.A.'s office, the High Court Registry, and from the  different police stations. The investigations in the aforesaid matters shall also be concluded and arrests effected insofar as they are needed as far as possible within the aforesaid period of three months.

5.The State shall provide all reasonable help for enhancing facilities for computerization in the G.A.'s office, appointing staff/counsel familiar with operating computers and data entry and for creation of space for preserving records at the G.A.'s office level.

List this case now on 23.4.07 when the officer of ADGP or other equivalent rank having all U.P jurisdiction appointed by the DGP shall be present for reporting compliance with the present order, the order dated 5.10.06 and the DGP's circular dated 21.10.06. The other authorities mentioned in the DGP's circular dated 21.10.06 shall also ensure compliance with the circular and the orders of this Court.  

Dated:  22.3.2007/sks.            



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.