(2017) 1 SCC 407
Order dated 8-9-2016
(Dipak Misra and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)
Crl. MP No. 14655 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
Crl. MP No. 14655 of 2016 in WP (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
1. This is an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for impleadment and modification of the Court's order dated 29-8-2016 (2016) 9 SCC 395.
2. Prayer for impleadment stands allowed. As far as the modification of order is concerned, it relates to order of stay passed on 29-8-2016 (2016) 9 SCC 395, wherein this Court had directed that there shall be stay of further investigation pertaining to FIR No. 0838 dated 30-7-2016. It is submitted by Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for CBI that in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the case has been transferred to CBI and CBI has commenced the investigation from 18-8-2016.
3. Mr Ankur Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the investigation is carried out by CBI, but the other grievances which have been highlighted in the writ petition and that had been adverted to on the earlier occasion, should remain alive and addressed to. We think that the submission of Mr Gogia is absolutely justified. The two other grievances, namely, whether the case should be transferred to another State; and whether Respondent 2 could have spoken in the manner as he has done with regard to the crime in question.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions raised at the Bar, we modify our order and permit CBI to continue with the investigation and do the needful in quite promptitude.
5. Crl. MP No. 14655 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.
WP (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
6. Let the writ petition be listed on the date fixed. We had earlier directed (2016) 9 SCC 395 the writ petition to be listed on 27-9-2016.
7. It is submitted by Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General that as the entire controversy is taken up and adjudicated by this Court, the High Court need not proceed with the matter. Having regard to the said submission, further proceedings in Criminal Writ—Public Interest Litigation No. 18005 of 2016, pending before the High Court, shall remain stayed.
(2017) 1 SCC 408
Order dated 27-9-2016
(Dipak Misra and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
8. On a perusal of the Office Report dated 26-9-2016, it transpires that the service on Respondent 2 is complete. Despite service of notice, he has not entered appearance.
9. Mr Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondents 1, 3 and 4.
10. Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, who has entered appearance on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), submits that the investigation is in progress.
11. In our considered view, Respondent 2 should have entered appearance as there are direct allegations against him in the writ petition.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to serve a copy of the writ petition on Respondent 2, forthwith.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is granted permission to file additional documents before the next date of hearing.
14. The Registry is directed to hand over copy of the notice to Mr R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel, assisting Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for CBI, so as to enable him to effect the service on Respondent 2. Call on 25-10-2016.
(2017) 1 SCC 409
Order dated 17-11-2016
(Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 113 of 2016
15. In pursuance of the notice issued (2016) 9 SCC 395, Respondent 2 had entered appearance on 8-11-2016 and sought time to file the counter-affidavit. Today, the counter-affidavit has been filed and brought on record.
16. In course of hearing, Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 2, has submitted that if by any statement made by Respondent 2 the petitioner has felt insulted or humiliated, the said respondent shall file an unconditional apology supported with an affidavit. The affidavit stating unconditional apology be filed within two weeks hence.
17. At this juncture, Mr Fali S. Nariman, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that for the purpose of this case, unconditional apology may be accepted, but the questions framed by this Court vide order dated 29-8-2016 (2016) 9 SCC 395, and the deliberation made on 8-11-2016 (2016) 10 SCC 295, regard being had to the notes submitted by him, should be debated and a decision be rendered so that before anyone, who holds a public office or authority, makes a statement, would be careful in respect of a victim, especially a victim of rape or molestation.
18. At this juncture, Mr Kislay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the State Government should get the petitioner's daughter admitted in any Kendriya Vidyalaya (Central School) situated in vicinity. Mr Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P has submitted that steps shall be taken to get the victim admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya within a month. Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has submitted that if the State Government bears the expenses, the Union of India shall see to it that the victim is admitted in the school, which is near to the petitioner's house. Needless to say, the expenses shall be borne by the State of U.P The petitioner, who is the father of the victim, shall indicate the choice within a week hence. The school administration where the girl shall be admitted shall see to it that she is treated with respect, for the dignity of a woman is absolutely uncompromisable with any kind of thought or concept or idea, which some time notioned in fancy.
19. The controversy does not end here. The unconditional apology to be submitted by Respondent 2 will be considered by this Court for the purpose of acceptation. That apart, as the questions framed by this Court have been of significance and are required to be debated, we would request Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India to assist the Court. Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General undertakes that he will convey to the learned Attorney General about the order passed by this Court and assist him accordingly.
20. Let the matter be listed on 7-12-2016, for the purpose of filing of the necessary affidavit by Respondent 2 and consideration thereof.
Court Masters