- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sunita Devi And Another v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On 24-07-2001 Smt. Seema Garg, daughter-in-law of Petitioner 1, and her two children were murdered. FIR No. 221 of 2001 was registered at Police Station Pilakhua, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge-sheet was filed on 17-08-2001 in Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2001. Nitin Garg, husband of the deceased, was arrested on suspicion and petitioned the Allahabad High Court for transfer of the investigation. On 16-07-2002 Nitin Garg himself was murdered, giving rise to FIR No. 228 of 2002 at the same police station.
The trial of FIR 221/2001 ended in acquittal on 16-10-2004; the trial court expressly criticised the quality of the investigation. In FIR 228/2002 the Fast Track Court, Ghaziabad, also acquitted the accused on 27-08-2004. Those acquittals were affirmed by the Allahabad High Court (10-07-2007) and by the Supreme Court in a special leave petition (28-11-2008).
The petitioners earlier secured a Supreme Court order dated 28-10-2013 directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to reinvestigate both FIRs, but they sought withdrawal of that order, which the Court allowed on 05-09-2014. In the present Article 32 writ petition they again seek a court-monitored investigation/Special Investigation Team (SIT), alleging serious faults in the prior probes.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should constitute a Special Investigation Team to conduct a fresh, court-monitored investigation into FIR No. 221 of 2001 relating to the murders of Seema Garg and her children.
- Whether a similar reinvestigation should be ordered for FIR No. 228 of 2002 concerning the murder of Nitin Garg, notwithstanding prior acquittals upheld up to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The original police investigation into FIR 221/2001 was described by the trial court itself as faulty and “bad,” demonstrating a failure to identify and prosecute the real culprits.
- During the CBI probe ordered in 2013, petitioners and their family allegedly faced continuous threats from accused persons, compelling them to withdraw the earlier writ petition.
- Petitioners claim evidence that CBI officers were “hand-in-glove” with the accused, including alleged bribery of senior officials to stall or close the investigation; an audio transcript of a conversation with an investigating officer is cited as support.
- Because of these circumstances, only a fresh, court-supervised SIT comprised of independent officers could ensure a fair, complete, and honest investigation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
After examining the records and hearing counsel, the Court treated the two FIRs separately:
- FIR 228/2002 (Murder of Nitin Garg): The Court noted that acquittals had been confirmed by the High Court and by dismissal of a special leave petition. Given this finality, directing a reinvestigation would be inappropriate; hence no further action was warranted.
- FIR 221/2001 (Murders of Seema Garg and her children): The Sessions Court’s judgment expressly recorded that the original investigation was inadequate. The Supreme Court found the record “evident” that real offenders were never brought to trial and characterised the police inquiry as “lackadaisical.” In view of the gravity of multiple murders, the acknowledged investigative lapses, and the allegations of interference and corruption, the Court concluded that “a fair, honest and complete investigation” was necessary.
Balancing these considerations, the Court exercised its Article 32 jurisdiction to secure fundamental rights and public confidence in criminal justice, deciding that constitution of an independent SIT was the proper remedy for FIR 221/2001 while declining relief for FIR 228/2002.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team headed by Shri M.L. Sharma, IPS (Retd.), former Special Director of CBI, authorising him to select two CBI officers as members, and directed the SIT to reinvestigate FIR No. 221 of 2001 and submit a report within three months. The Government of Uttar Pradesh must provide full logistical and financial support. The matter is to be listed immediately after the three-month period. The Court refused to order reinvestigation of FIR No. 228 of 2002.
Implications: The ruling revives investigative efforts into the 2001 triple-murder despite earlier acquittals, signalling that demonstrably flawed investigations can still be revisited to uphold justice. However, the Court preserved the finality of litigation already scrutinised through all appellate levels (FIR 228/2002). No new legal doctrine was created; the decision’s impact is confined to ensuring a fresh probe in FIR 221/2001.
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.— This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking court-monitored investigation/constitution of SIT by this Court in respect of FIRs Nos. 221 of 2001 and 228 of 2002 registered at Police Station Pilakhua, Uttar Pradesh.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt Seema Garg, daughter-in-law of Petitioner 1, and her two children were murdered on 24-7-2001 and an FIR No. 221 of 2001 to this effect was lodged in Police Station Pilakhua, U.P. under Sections 302/394 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and the investigation started. On 17-8-2001, the police filed the charge-sheet in Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2001. Nitin Garg, husband of deceased Seema Garg, was arrested by the police on account of suspicion. Nitin Garg moved a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court for transfer of investigation of the case to an independent investigating agency. On 16-7-2002, Nitin Garg was also murdered and the second FIR No. 228 of 2002 was lodged. The trial court by its judgment dated 16-10-2004 in Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2001, acquitted the accused persons observing as under:
“On the examination of this case is also necessary to be highlighted. In this case three persons have been murdered and the investigating officer on the basis of extra-judicial confession has filed charges against the accused. The investigating officer against which two accused undertrial has filed charge-sheet in this Court against them any witness of the prosecution has even not made any statement. Any of the witness of the prosecution not making any statement against accused Manveer and Mukesh the only conclusion arrived at may be that in this case the investigation has not been carried on properly. It has also to be mentioned that witness PW 8 who is brother of the deceased and who had made statement against Rajendra and his son Nitin he also has not made any statement against accused PW 8 not making any statement of any kind against accused Manveer and Mukesh indicates the investigation to be bad. In this case no criminal history of the accused Manveer and Mukesh has been produced by the prosecution. Therefore against these persons even presumption could not be made that the above accused are criminal history-sheeters and they could commit grievous crime like murder.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. In FIR No. 228 of 2002, pertaining to the murder of Nitin Garg, which has been investigated by the State Police, the Fast Track Court, Ghaziabad, by its judgment and order dated 27-8-2004 acquitted the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar Bansal, son of Suresh Chand; Pradeep, son of Suresh Chand; Harish and Rinku, sons of Brijesh. The acquittal of accused persons in the murder of Nitin Garg was confirmed Criminal Revision No. 4980 of 2004 by the High Court. The special leave petition filed before this Court against the said judgment was also dismissed SLP (Cri) Crl. MP No. 17857 of 2007.
4. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed a petition before this Court, inter alia, seeking for reinvestigation of both the abovementioned cases by CBI, which was allowed by order dated 28-10-2013 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1284. However, the petitioners prayed for withdrawal of the aforementioned order. Accordingly, the order directing investigation by CBI was withdrawn by this Court on 5-9-2014 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1627.
5. As noted above, the petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for constitution of court-monitored investigation/SIT to reinvestigate the aforesaid cases pertaining to FIRs Nos. 221 of 2001 and 228 of 2002 registered at Police Station Pilakhua, Uttar Pradesh.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. Insofar as FIR No. 228 of 2002 is concerned, the accused persons were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, U.P. on 27-8-2004 in Sessions Trial Nos. 500 and 501 of 2003. This judgment was challenged by the State in Appeal No. 6227 of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioners had also challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Revision No. 4980 of 2004. The Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and order dated 10-7-2007 Criminal Revision No. 4980 of 2004 dismissed both the cases. This judgment was challenged by the husband of Petitioner 1 and father of Petitioner 2 in SLP (criminal) which was dismissed on 28-11-2008 SLP (Cri) Crl. MP No. 17857 of 2007. In the circumstances, the question directing reinvestigation of this FIR does not arise.
7. Insofar as FIR No. 221 of 2001 is concerned, the trial court passed a judgment dated 16-10-2004 in Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2001 observing that the investigation has not been carried out properly. While acquitting the accused, the trial court has clearly observed that the investigation conducted is bad.
8. It is true that the petitioners preferred writ petition bearing No. 4 of 2005 before this Court wherein while disposing of the writ petition on 28-10-2013 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1284, this Court directed CBI to reinvestigate FIR No. 221 of 2001 and also FIR No. 228 of 2002 observing that further investigation will be independent investigation without being influenced by the judgment rendered in the earlier proceeding. The contention of the petitioners is that while the case was being investigated by CBI, the petitioners and their family received constant threats by the accused to withdraw the case and not to cooperate in the investigation. It is also alleged that the investigating officers had close nexus with the accused persons. On account of continuous threats given by the accused persons, the petitioners felt helpless and decided to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5-9-2014 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1627. It is contended that the petitioners have sufficient evidence to show that CBI did not investigate the case deliberately, being hand in glove with the accused persons. There are indications of huge money being bribed to top officers to close the matter. After the writ petition was dismissed, the son of Petitioner 1, namely, Ajay Garg had met with one of the investigating officers investigating the case and that the said officer categorically admitted deliberate attempts on the part of CBI not to proceed with the case and top officers being bribed to close the case. It is contended that Petitioner 1 has the excerpts of the conversation between the son of Petitioner 1 and the officer concerned, and that the excerpts of the transcript would show that the investigation carried on by CBI was mere sham to cause undue harassment and to close the case.
9. As noted above, in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Case No. 221 of 2001, the court has categorically observed that the investigation has not been conducted fairly. It is evident that the real culprits responsible for murder of the petitioners' family have not been subjected to trial. It is clear that the investigating agency showed lackadaisical approach in carrying/proceeding with the investigation. We are of the view that it is necessary to have a fair, honest and complete investigation.
10. Having examined the entire materials placed on record, we deem it proper to constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to reinvestigate FIR No. 221 of 2001 titled “State v. Manvir Singh” registered at Police Station Pilakhua, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Shri M.L. Sharma, IPS (retired), former Special Director, CBI, is appointed as the Chairman of the SIT. Shri M.L. Sharma is permitted to take assistance of two officers of his choice of CBI as its members. We direct the SIT to proceed as regards further investigation in respect of FIR No. 221 of 2001 and to submit its report within a period of three months from today. Needless to say that appropriate secretarial assistance and logistic support shall be made available to the SIT by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to provide to the Chairman and the members of the SIT all travelling, boarding and lodging expenses while discharging their responsibility entrusted to them.
11. List the matter immediately after three months.
Alert