Supreme Court c.a.

8/6/2019 Supreme Court c.a.

1/28

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

On behalf of

Brijesh Singh son of Jai Narayan Singh

Resident of A-153/1A/1, Myurabad,

Police Station Cantt, Allahabad.

District Allahabad.

. Respondent no.6

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2194-95 OF 2011

Affidavit of Brijesh Singh aged about .. years

son of Jai Narayan Singh, Resident of A-

153/1A/1, Myurabad, Police Station Cantt,

Allahabad, District Allahabad.

(Deponent)

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on

oath as Under.


2/28

1. That the deponent is the respondent no.6 in the above case and as

such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case deposed to

below.

2. That the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) filed by the accused petitioners

(hereinafter referred as S.L.P.) has been read over and explained

to the deponent / complainant and the deponent is in position to

give reply the same as Under.

3. That before giving parawise reply it is necessary to bring the facts

and circumstances of the case which are essential of proper

adjudication of the matter.

4. That it is the case of dowry death due to ante-mortem injuries

occurred within 1 year 10 month from the marriage of the deceased.

5. That the marriage of the deceased Smt. Suchita was solemnized with

the accused Ajeet Singh, proforma respondent no.7 with hindu

custom and rite on 12.012.2008. In the marriage dowry of Rs.10 lacs

cash, jwellory of Rs.4 lacs and other house hold item Colour

television, Freedge etc were given by the father of the deceased to

her in-laws. However they were not satisfied with the dowry and

started further demand of Rs. 2 lacs and cash of Rs. 2 lacs, which was

not fulfilled by the parents of the deceased due to financial crises, as

such the deceased Suchita Singh was subjected to cruelty by her in-

laws/ accused persons named in the First Information Report and

subsequently she was killed by them on 05.10.2010. After receiving

the telephonic information the parents of the deceased arrived at


3/28

the place of incident and the deponent had submitted an application

dated 06.10.2010 before the Station Officer of Police Station

Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad for registration of the First

Information Repot which was not lodged deliberately with the

collusion of the accused persons, although the inquest on the dead

body of the ceased Smt. Suchita was conducted by the police on

06.10.2010 on the information of the deponent vide G.D. No.6, dated

06.10.2010, Time 06.10 A.M. Thereafter Post Mortem on the dead

body of the deceased was conducted on 06.10.2010 at 3.20 p.m. in

District Hospital Ghaziabad. Thereafter in the evening of 06.10.2010

the dead body was handed over which was criminating in evening of

07.10.2010. Thereafter the deponent and his family members again

approached to the Station Officer of Police Station Indrapuram for

registration of his First Information Report and after his best effort,

the same was lodged in the morning of 09.10.2010.

6. That the First Information Report in question discloses prima facie

cognizable offence which requires proper investigation.

7. That the accused person petitioners and proforma respondents are

rich and high handed political person having relation with higher

political persons and executive officials.

8. That since beginning after committing the offence, the accused

persons are making illegal pressure upon the Investigation Officer and

other concerned police officials for submitting final report in their

favour.


4/28

9. That under the influence of accused persons and proforma

respondents, the Investigation Officer of Police Station Indrapuram,

District Ghaziabad did not investigate the case properly and illegally

facilitated the accused persons ignoring the credible prosecution

evidence of the dowry death. When no proper investigation was

carried out the deponent has preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition

No. 22072 of 2010, Under Article 226 Constitution of India before the

Honble High Court Allahabad, to monitor and ensure the proper and

speedy investigation of the case. The said writ petition was

entertained by Honble High Court Allahabad directing the learned

Additional Government Advocate to seek instruction from the

concern police authorities only then police stopped up action in the

pending investigation and obtained arrest warrant against the

accused persons Under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and also initiated

proceeding under section 83 of Cr.P.C.

10. That thereafter when the Investigation Officer of the case had

proceeded to arrest the accused persons then the accused persons

petitioners and proforma respondents have used their high position

and get transfer of investigation of the case from Civil Police

Ghaziabad to C.B.C.I.D., Head Office Lucknow which is adjacent to

Raibareilly residence of the accused vide exparte order dated

21.01.2011 (Copy of the order dated 21.01.2011 already filed as

Annexure No.7, Page no.81-85).


5/28

11. That the aforesaid transfer order dated 21.01.2011 passed by U.P.

State was not speaking order showing no reason at all for transfer the

investigation of the case.

12. That against the order of transfer of the investigation dated

31.01.2011 was passed by the State of U.P. on the application of

accused Kaushalendra Pratap Singh dated 18.11.2010 which does not

disclose any reason for transfer of the case.

13. That in the application for transfer the investigation dated

18.11.2010 submitted by the accused petitioner no.1 there was no

ground at all for transferring the investigation from Civil Police

Ghaziabad to C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow. In the said application there is no

complaint of the Investigation Officer of Police Station Indrapuram

District Ghaziabad and other police officials of Ghaziabad. In the said

application it was simply stated by the accused Kaushalendra Singh

that he has been falsely implicated and he prayed for transfer of

investigation to C.B.C.I.D. without any apprehension of free and fair

investigation by the Civil Police Ghaziabad. The said application of

the accused Kaushalendra Singh was not maintainable in view of

notification-dated 15.09.1995 issued by the U.P. Government (Copy

of the said application dated 18.11.2010 has already filed as

Annexure No.4, Page No.59-65).

14. That on the aforesaid Application for transfer of investigation dated

18.11.2010, an order dated 24.11.2010 was illegally passed by the

Deputy Secretary U.P. Government, Lucknow strictly directing the


6/28

S.S.P. Ghaziabad to submit his report within 7 days with

recommendation for transferring the investigation.

However, under the provisions of Notification dated

15.09.1995, No. 4143/C-6:3.3.27/94 (issued by the U.P. Government

already filed as Annexure No.7 to the S.L.P., Page No.90-94), on the

application for the transferring the application to C.B.C.I.D. , the

U.P. Government is calling the report from the concerned Senior

Superintendent of Police who is free to submit any report after

examining the matter, either for transferring the investigation, or

refusing for transferring the investigation. However it is clear from

the aforesaid letter of the Deputy Secretary of the U.P. Government

dated 24.11.2010 (filed as Annexure no.5 to the S.L.P., Page No.66-

67) that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad was forcibly

compelled by the high officials of the U.P. Government to

recommend the transfer of recommendation of C.B.C.I.D. As such he

was illegally compelled to recommend for transferring the

investigation to C.B.C.I.D. without verifying the grounds and

application of the accused according to the notification of the U.P.

Government dated 15.09.1995. this fact clearly shows that the

accused-petitioners are very rich and high handed person having

approach with the higher official of the State Government of U.P.

and higher political persons.

15. That as per the law laid down by this Honble Court in various cases

including in case of C.B.I. and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another

, reported in (1996) II, S.C.C. 253, accused has no right to choose the

Investigation Agency of his own choice and no opportunity of hearing

is to be provided to the any accused before intrusting the


7/28

investigation of the case to any Investigation Agency or any police

officer, as such in view of law laid down by the Honble High Court,

the instant application for transferring the investigation of the case

dated 18.11.2010 filed by the accused- petitioner no.1 was itself is

not maintainable.

It is further submitted here that before transferring the

investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. neither any notice was issued

nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the deponent/

complainant of the case by the U.P. State Government. However

investigation of the case was transferred behind his back by an

exparte order.

16. That the deponent who is complainant of the case and his family

members are residing at Allahabad more than 6 Kilo Meters any from

Ghaziabad. However the some of the accused are residing at

Ghaziabad and some of accused are residing at Raibareilly.

17. That only for personal benefit the accused persons are seeking

transfer of the investigation of the case from Civil Police Ghaziabad

to C.B.C.I.D. at Lucknow which is adjacent to Raibareilly. However as

per the settled law only the distance of concerned police station

from the residence of the accused persons no ground for seeking

transfer of the investigation at the place nearest to the residence of

the accused.

18. That in Writ Petition No. 2481 of 2011, the original record of

transferring the investigation to C.B.C.I.D. was called by the Honble


8/28

High Court Allahabad from the State Government which was

produced at the time of hearing of the case and after examining the

entire original record, produced by the U.P. Government no valid

reason for transferring the investigation was found available to the

U.P. Government. In the entire original record, including the

application of the petitioner no.1 dated 18.11.2010 neither any

complaint nor any apprehension of fair investigation by the Civil

Police Ghaziabad was made by the accused persons. However they

have simply prayed to transfer of investigation to C.B.C.I.D.

Lucknow adjacent to their residence only linger on the proceedings

and for submitting final report from C.B.C.I.D.

19. That it is also relevant to mention here that the First Information

Report in question has been lodged at Police Station Indrapuram,

Ghaziabad which comes under the C.B.C.I.D. at Meerut. However by

the order dated 21.01.2011 instead of inheriting the investigation of

the case to the concerned Brnach of C.B.C.I.D. at Meerut, the

investigation of the case illegally interested to the C.B.C.I.D.

Lucknow just to facilitate the accused persons, so that they can

easily obliged the Investigation Officer of C.B.C.I.D. in their favour.

20. That it is pertinent to mention here that the order of transferring the

investigation to C.B.C.I.D. dated 18.11.2010 was passed by the U.P.

State Government in illegal and arbitrary manner during the

pendency of the Writ Petition No. 22072 of 2010 in which Honble

High Court Allahabad was monitoring the investigation of the case

and without any intimation to Honble High Court, Allahabad. This

fact clearly shows that under the influence of the accused persons,


9/28

the Senior Officer of State Government were very much interested

to facilitate the accuse persons by transferring the investigation of

the case on their own choice and their own convenience.

21. That there is no illegality and error in the impugned order dated

17.02.2011 passed by Honble High Court Allahabad in Criminal Misc.

Writ Petition No. 2481 of 2011 and 22072 of 2010.

22. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner no.1

Kaushalendra Singh is active leader of Congress Party. He is Ex-Block

Pramukh and Ex-Director of District Co-operative Bank, Raibareilly

and at present he is Manager of Committee of Management Smt. Ram

Urehi Balika Inter College, Pakra, District Raibareilly, Indira Gandhi

Memorial Inter College Bheera Govindpur, District Raibareilly. He is

permanent resident of Village Pakra Girfta, District Raibareilly and

one S.M. Singh (I.P.S.) Retired Addl. Director General of Police U.P.

who retired recently in May, 2010 is neighbour and relative of

Kaushalendra Pratap Singh and permanent resident of same village.

As such with the collusion of petitioner no.1 Kaushalendra Pratap

Singh, retired A.D.G.P. of U.P. is regularly influencing the

Investigating Officer and other Police Authorities ensuring the

submission of final Report in favour of accused-petitioners.

Mr. S.M. Singh, Retired A.D.G.P. U.P. along with the petitioner

no.1 Kaushalendra Pratap Singh, petitioner no.2 Amit Singh and

proforma respondent no.7 Ajeet Singh (husban of deceased) had

regularly visited at Agra on 25.10.2010 and 27.11.2010 and stayed in

16 Battalian P.H.C. Guest House, Agra where he personally called the


10/28

father of the deponent Sri Jai Narayan Singh and all of them have

threatened the father of the deponent not to initiate the criminal

proceedings against the accused persons and in the instant case,

otherwise you ready to face dire consequences. Mr. S.M. Singh has

also threatened to father of deponent saying that he is the Retired

A.D.G.P. U.P. as such in case of initiating criminal proceedings

against the accused petitioners, it will be very difficult to the

father of the deponent to serve in the U.P. Police Department.

Thereafter at several time Mr. S.M. Singh, A.D.G.P. had influenced

both the Investigating Officer of Police Station Ghaziabad in favour of

the accused-petitioners through telephonic conversation by his own

mobile No.09935483438. the said Retired A.D.G.P. Mr. S.M. Singh

had regularly threatening the father of the deponent on telephonic

conversation by own mobile No.09935483438 with the warning that

he will protect the accused person by getting transfer of

investigation to C.B.C.I.D. Head Office Lucknow and will ensure

submission of Final Report or linger on the investigation up to many

years.

23. That U.P.C.I.D. is not free, fair and speedy investigation agency, it is

working under the influence and instruction initiating of political and

bureau crat / executive persons defending the accused persons

lingering on the investigation to so long without arresting the accused

persons. In Uttar Pradesh most of political and high handed persons

are getting transfer of their criminal cases to C.B.C.I.D. where they

can easily managed the Investigating Officer in their favour.


11/28

24. That it is the simple investigation, having no complicity and the

investigation of the case has almost completed by the civil police of

Ghaziabad.

25. That the deponent who is the complainant and his family members

have no faith at all upon the U.P.C.B.C.I.D., which is being chosen by

the accused persons for their own interest.

PRAWISE REPLY

26. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 1 of the Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) , the instant S.L.P. filed by the accused persons for

getting transfer of the case to the investigation agency of their

choice which is not permitted under the law. It is further submitted

that there is no illegality and error in the impugned order dated

17.02.2011 passed by this Honble High Court, Allahabad.

27. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(i)) to (viii) of the Special

Leave Petition is false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that

the correct fact of the case have been narrated herein above, as well

as in the First Information Report and statement of prosecution

witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161

Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the deceased Suchita singh was

done to death by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of their

illegal demand of dowry. The accused persons are high handed

persons. Accordingly under their pressure initially the First

Information Report of the deponent was not lodged by the police of

Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad on 06.10.2010 inspite

of the written applications submitted by the deponent and the same


12/28

was lodged subsequently on 09.10.2010 after best effort. Admittedly

it is case of dowry death occurred within 1 year 10 month from the

marriage of the deceased Suchita Singh.

It is further submitted that there was neither any reason to

the deceased to commit the suicide nor she has committed suicide as

stated by the accused persons in the paragraph under reply. It is

submitted here that the deceased Suchita Singh was residing with

her-in-laws at Raibareilly just few days ago of the occurrence she

was shifted at Ghaziabad.

28. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(ix) of the Special Leave Petition

is false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that regarding the

registration of the First Information Report by the deponent at the

behest an instigation of Mr. Atul Singh Chauhan is baseless, false and

fabricated. However the deponent was never instigated by him for

initiating the criminal proceeding in question.

29. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(x) of the Special Leave Petition

false, misconceived hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that

neither the father of the deponent Jai Narayan Singh is having good

relation with Raghuveer Lal, S.S.P. Ghaziabad nor he has ever

influenced the investigation of the case. Such averments have been

made subsequently after thought and consultation. However such

allegation were not mentioned in the transfer application dated

18.11.2010 filed by the petitioner no.1 Kaushalendra Pratap Singh

before the U.P. Government on behalf of all the accused persons.

(Copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.4 to the S.L.P., Page


13/28

no. 59 65). Hence such allegations are not available before the U.P.

Government at the time of considering the application for the

transfer of investigation of accused persons and at the time of

passing the transfer of investigation dated 21.01.2011. Therefore

there is no relevancy of such belated allegation having not supported

by any substantial evidence. It is further submitted that before

getting the transfer of the investigation to C.B.C.I.D. vide order

dated 21.01.2011, the such allegation for influencing the

investigation by the father of the deponent was not made by the

accused persons before the U.P. Government and the police officer

etc.

30. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 2((xi) of the Special

Leave Petition are false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted

that since the accused persons are political and high handed person.

As such they have influenced the Senior Officers of U.P. State

Government for getting transfer of the investigation of the case to

C.B.C.I.D. accordingly instead of calling the independent report from

the concerned S.S.P. Ghaziabad on the transfer application of the

accused-persons, the Dy. Secretary U.P. Government has directed the

S.S.P. Ghaziabad vide order dated 24.11.2010 with the direction to

specifically transfer of the investigation to the C.B.C.I.D.

Accordingly under the influence and specific direction of U.P.

Government, the S.S.P. Ghaziabad has illegally made

recommendation for transferring the investigation of the case

without making any inquiry and without examining the transfer

application of the accused petitioners as provided under U.P.

Government Notification No. 4173/C/6:3.3.27 P/94 (Copy of which


14/28

has already been filed along with the S.L.P. at Page No. 90-94). This

fact clearly shows the investigation of the case was allegedly

transferred by the U.P. Government vide order dated 21.01.2011

without examining the fact and circumstances of the case and

without complying the prescribed procedure.

31. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(xii) of the Special Leave

Petition are false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that the

father of deponent Sri Jai Narayan Singh had neither influenced nor

monitored the investigation of the case. Such allegation are

absolutely false and baseless. It is further submitted that before

passing the investigation transfer order dated 21.01.2011 the

deponent and his family members were completely unaware

regarding the application for transferring the investigation to

C.B.C.I.D. Lucknow , filed by the accused person and proceeding

thereupon.

However under the influence of accused persons when no

proper investigation was conducted by the investigating Officer then

he filed a application dated 15.11.2010 before the Principal

Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow, I.G. Meerut Region, Meerut,

S.S.P. Ghaziabad through registered case for ensuring the proper

investigation. A true copy of the said application dated 15.11.2010

along with the postal receipt is being filed herewith and is marked as

ANNEXURE NO.CA-1 to this affidavit.

When the accused persons came to know regarding the filing of

application dated 15.11.2010 filed by the deponent, then for getting


15/28

illegal advantage the accused petitioner no.1 has allegedly filed false

and misconceived application dated 18.11.2010 before the U.P.

Government for getting transfer the investigation to C.B.C.I.D.

Lucknow.

Consequently for ensuring free and fair investigation, a Criminal

Misc. Writ Petition No. 22072 of 2010 was preferred by the deponent

before the Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was

entertained and considering the gravity of the offence monitoring the

case was started vide order dated 13.12.2010, by calling instruction

from Investigating Officer and other police authorities through

learned A.G.A. The copy of said order was communicated by the

learned A.G.A., High Court, Allahabad to all the respondents,

Principal Secretary U.P. Government Lucknow, S.S.P. Ghaziabad,

Station Officer, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad

through fax message before 20.`12.2010. As such all the respondents

authorities including the petitioners have become fully aware of

regarding the monitoring of the investigation of the instant case by

Honble High Court, Allahabad in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition

No.22072 of 2010. However disobeying and flouting the aforesaid

order of this Honble Court, Allahabad dated 13.12.2010 the Special

Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow has passed the order dated

21.01.2011 transferring the investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D.

without any valid reason, flouting the provisions of U.P. Government

Notification No. 4173/C/6:3.3.27 P/94.

32. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(xii) of the Special Leave



16/28

investigation of the case almost completed by the Investigating

Officer up to mid of December, 2010 within 2.5 months from the

registration of the First Information Report. During which credible

evidence was collected against the accused persons for commission

of offence in question. Accordingly in pursuance of the aforesaid

order of the Honble Supreme Court, Allahabad dated 13.12.2010 the

Investigating officer has legally initiated the proceedings under

section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons. It is further

submitted that the father of the deponent Sri Jai Narayan Singh has

no friendship or good relation with Sri Raghuveer Lal S.S.P.

Ghaziabad. The lock of house no. 1006-G Green Bhumi Vijeta

Mohalla, Police Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad was never broken by

the police on instigation of the informant. However it appears that

just to secure the prosecution evidence at the place of occurrence

house in question has been locked by the police.

33. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(xiv) of the Special Leave


order of transfer of investigation dated 21.01.2011 passed by the

U.P. State Government is illegal, arbitrary and against the law and

same has been passed only to satisfy the accused persons.

34. That the contents of paragraph no. 2(xv), (xvi), (xvii) of the Special

Leave Petition are false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted

that Mr. Atul Singh Chauhan has never instigated the complainant for

challenging the investigation transfer order by filing Criminal Misc.

Writ Petition. However the deponent/ complainant himself is well

qualified B.Tech., M.B.A. from well reputed institution, I.I.P.M.

Delhi. Accordingly aggrieved by the transfer order of investigation

dated 21.01.2011 himself filed the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.


17/28

2481 of 2011 before the Honble High Court, Allahabad, in which

original record was called from the government which was put by the

Addl. Government Advocate at the time of hearing of the case and

the same was perused and considered by the Honble High Court and

Honble High Court Allahabad arrived at the conclusion that there

was no material before the U.P. Government for transferring the

investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. The application of the

accused for transferring the investigation dated 18.11.2010 did not

disclose any proper reason for transferring the investigation of the

case to C.B.C.I.D. Accordingly after considering the entire facts and

circumstances and there is relevant provisions of law, the Honble

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was pleased to rightly allowed

the writ petition by setting aside the order of transfer for

investigation directing the Investigating Officer of the Police Station

Indrapuram District Ghaziabad to conclude the investigation of the

case within a period not exceeding 60 days in accordance with law.

There is no illegality and error in the order of the Honble High Court

Allahabad.

35. That the contents of paragraph no. 3-A of the Special Leave Petition

are false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that the

observation mentioned in the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the

Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are correct and based

upon the record, facts and circumstances of the case. It is further

submitt4ed that before filing the alleged transfer application dated

18.11.2010 by the accused-petitioner no.1, application dated

15.11.2010 was filed by the deponent before the Principal Secretary

(Home), U.P. Government Lucknow, I.G. Bareilly Region Bareilly,


18/28

S.S.P. Ghaziabad through registered post to ensure free, fair

investigation of the case. However when the petitioners came to

know regarding filing of the writ petition, then have filed a false and

misconceived application dated 18.11.2010 and under their

influence, the Dy. Secretary of U.P. Government, Lucknow has

illegally directed the Senior Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad for

submitting specific recommendation to transfer the investigation of

the case to C.B.C.I.D. without making proper enquiry as provided

under the U.P. Government Notification No. 4173/C/6:3.3.27 P/94.

As such the S.S.P. Ghaziabad was compelled by Dy. Secretary of U.P.

Government to make recommendation of investigation to C.B.C.I.D.

Thereafter on the writ petition of the deponent/ complainant,

numbered as 22072 of 2010 the monitoring of investigation was

started by the Honble High Court Allahabad vide order dated

13.12.2010. Copy of which was circulated to all the concerned

official of U.P. Government. However ignoring and disobeying the

order of the Honble High Court, Allahabad the U.P. Government has

illegally transferred the investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. by

non speaking order dated 21.01.2011.

36. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(B) of the Special Leave Petition

are false, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that the Hon'ble

High Court Allahabad had rightly observed in the order dated

17.02.2011 that no cogent and convincing ground found for

transferring the investigation of the case from local police to

C.B.C.I.D. It was also rightly observed that initially the local police

sat tight over the investigation. It is further submitted here that

father of deponent Mr. Jai Narayan Singh has no relation at all with


19/28

Mr. Raghuveer Lal, S.S.P. Ghaziabad nor he influenced the

investigation in any manner. Such allegations are absolutely false

and fabricated made after thought and consultation and the same are

missing in the investigation transfer application dated 18.11.2010

filed by the accused-petitioner no.1 before the U.P.

Government.

37. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(C) of the Special Leave Petition

is false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that

the investigation of the case was almost completed by the Civil

Police of Ghaziabad in pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High

Court, Allahabad dated 13.12.2010 and there was no complaint of the

accused petitioners against the Civil Police of District Ghaziabad. The

investigation of the case is not complicated whereas it is so simple

and the U.P. civil police are fully competent for the same. However

the accused-petitioners have illegally got transferred the

investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. only for their connivance and

choosing the Investigation Agency of their own choice.

It is further submitted that the investigation of the case was

not investigated by the C.B.C.I.D. as the transfer order was

immediately challenged by the complainant/deponent before

Hon'ble High Court Allahabad by filing Criminal Misc. Writ

Petition No. 2481 of 2011 in which original record was called by the

Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. The said writ petition was allowed on

17.02.2011 by quashing investigation transfer order dated

21.01.2011. The copy of the said order of Hon'ble High Court

Allahabad was filed by the complainant/ deponent before the


20/28

Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D. Head Quarter Lucknow through fax

and through registered post.

38. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(D) of the Special Leave Petition

are false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted that

the father of deponent has never influenced the investigation of the

case conducted by the U.P. Civil Police Ghaziabad. He is posted at

Lohamandi, District Agra about 200 K.M. away from Ghaziabad. Agra

is separate Zone having no concern at all with the civil police of

Ghaziabad which comes under the Meerut Zone of U.P. Police. Said

false grounds have been subsequently taken by the accused persons

which were not raised before U.P. Government or any authority

before getting transfer of investigation to C.B.C.I.D. vide order dated

21.01.2011.

39. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(E) of the Special Leave Petition

are false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is clear from

the investigation transfer application dated 18.11.2010 filed by

the accused petitioner no.1 before the U.P. Government that

accused petitioners have neither made any allegations against U.P.

Civil Police Ghaziabad nor discloses their dissatisfaction against the

Investigating Officer of Civil Police, Ghaziabad. There was no

material at all, available before the U.P. Government for transferring

the investigation of the case to the C.B.C.I.D. which has been

illegally done by the U.P. Government with the collusion of the

accused petitioners violating the applicable rules only for their

satisfaction.


21/28

40. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(F) of the Special Leave Petition


the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad has rightly given observation in its

order mentioned in the paragraph under reply. It is further submitted

here that it is evidently clear from the investigation transfer

application dated 18.11.2010 filed by the accused-petitioners before

the State Government that neither any allegation was made against

Civil Police Ghaziabad nor any kind of influence of father of the

deponent has been disclosed nor dissatisfaction upon the Civil Police

of Ghaziabad was disclosed by the accused-petitioners. As such there

was no circumstance at all to the U.P. Government arrived to the

conclusion that there was any difficulty for the local police of

Ghaziabad to conduct enquiry in to the matter unbiasedly.

The petitioners and the U.P. State Government have completely

failed to disclose any circumstances / proper ground for transferring

the investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. vide order dated 21.01.2011.

The allegation of influencing the investigation by the father of the

deponent Sri Jai Narayan Singh through S.S.P. Ghaziabad were neither

made by the accused-petitioners nor available before the U.P.

Government before transferring the investigation of the case to

C.B.C.I.D. vide order dated 21.01.2011. The entire original record of

transfer of investigation was perused by the Hon'ble High Court

Allahabad in presence of counsel for the Petitioners. It is further

submitted here that the accused-petitioners are influencing the

investigation of the case in their favour through their close friend Mr.

S.M. Singh, Retd. Addl. Director General of Police, U.P. under whose


22/28

influence the investigation of the case was illegally got transferred to

C.B.C.I.D. in its Head Office Lucknow nearest to the residence of the

accused persons.

41. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(G) of the Special Leave

Petition are false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is

submitted that Mr. Jain Narayan Singh has never influenced the

investigation of the case in any manner whereas the accused-

petitioners are influencing the investigation of the case since

beginning and the C.B.C.I.D. is in their pocket agency, in which the

various friends of Mr. S.M. Singh, Retd. Addl. Director General of

Police, U.P. are posted and they will influenced the investigation in

favour of the accused persons. As such the deponent/ complainant

and his family members have no faith at all upon the U.P.C.B.C.I.D.

42. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(H) of the Special Leave

Petition are false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is

submitted that the law laid down in Preeti Gupta's case has no

relevancy in the fact and circumstances of the present case which is

under investigation.

43. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(I) of the Special Leave Petition


the petitioners have regularly visited at Ghaziabad at the residence

of Ajeet Singh and deceased Suchita Singh. The deceased Suchita

Singh was subjected for cruelty and done to death by the accused

persons.


23/28

44. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(J) of the Special Leave Petition


it appears that due to stenographical mistake the deponent was

incorrectly shown as father of deceased in place of brother although

it was rightly mentioned in the writ petition as well as other record.

It is further submitted here that the father of deponent Sri Jai

Narayan Singh has no relation or friendship with S.S.P. Ghaziabad Mr.

Raghuveer Lal as alleged by the petitioners.

45. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(K) of the Special Leave Petition

are absolutely false and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is

submitted that the petitioner no.1 Kaushalendra Singh had actively

participated in collusion of offence along with the co-accused

persons. However, under the influence of the accused persons the

Investigating Officer of Police Station Indrapuram Ghaziabad has

neither taken any action against Mr. Kaushalendra Singh nor initiated

the proceeding under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against him which was

initiated other co-accused persons. This fact clearly shows that the

said Investigating Officer was exonerating the accused Kaushalendra

Singh from the offence in question. Hence no occasion was arisen to

Mr. Kaushalendra Singh to file a false and misconceived application

for transfer of investigation dated 18.11.2010 before the U.P.

Government for transferring the investigation to C.B.C.I.D.

It is further submitted here that Atul Singh Chauhan is brother-in-

law of the deceased and he has not suggested the complainant/

deponent for launching the criminal prosecution against the accused-

petitioners. Mr. Atul Singh Chauhan has no personal enmity with Mr.


24/28

Kaushalendra Singh and other co-accused persons. Hence the

allegations made against Mr. Chauhan is absolutely false and

baseless.

46. That the contents of paragraph no. 3(L) of the Special Leave Petition


there is no illegality and error in the order dated 17.02.2011 passed

by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad.

47. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the Special Leave Petition

need no comment for want of knowledge.

48. That under the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, the

S.L.P. has no merit and liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court

with costs.


25/28

49.

50. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is expedient

in the interest of justice that this Honble Court may graciously be

pleased to dismiss the instant Criminal Revision with cost by

discharging interim order if any, otherwise the respondent no.2 shall

suffer irreparable loss and injury.

I, the deponent above-named do hereby swear and verify that

the contents of paragraph no.

Of this affidavit are based on true to my personal knowledge and

those of paragraph nos.

Of this affidavit are based on perusal of records and those of

paragraph nos.


26/28

Of this affidavit are based on legal advice which all I believe to be

true that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed in it.

So help me God.

DEPONENT

I, S.K. SINGH Advocate, High Court Allahabad do hereby declare

that the person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be deponent

is the same person who is known to me from the perusal of papers

produced in this case.

ADVOCATE

Solemnly, affirmed before me on this .. Day of March, 2011 at

about .. a.m./p.m. by the deponent, who has been identified by

the aforesaid advocate.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understood

the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and explained

to him by me.

OATH COMMISSIONER.


27/28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.

INDEX

IN

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

IN

CRL. MISC. STAY VACATION APPLICATION NO. OF 2011

IN

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 4973 OF 2010

(Under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code)

(DISTRICT - LALITPUR)

Indrabhan Singh . Applicant

Versus.

State of U.P. and another .. Opposite Parties.

Sl.

no.

Particulars Dates Annexure Page

1. Criminal Misc. Stay Vacation

Application, Under Chapter XXII,

Rule 1 of High Court Rules.2. Counter Affidavit on behalf of

opposite party no.23. Parcha.

(SHIV KUMAR SINGH)

ADVOCATE

COUNSEL FOR THE O.P. NO.2, 3


28/28

CH. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION HALL

NEW BUILDING, HIGH COURT,

ALLAHABAD

DATE: March, 2011

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	erbrijesh86
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Supreme Court c.a.

Documents