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.