W.P.(CRL)/899/2023 of BACHAN PAL Vs THE STATE OF N C T OF DELHI & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

BACHAN PAL

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr.NirajKumarMishra,Mr.Abhinav Pandey, Advocates alongwith Petitioner in personAbhinav Pandey, Advocates alongwith Petitioner in person

versus

THE STATE OF N T OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through:Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the Statewith Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr.Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket KumarSingh,AdvocatesalongwithSIShilpy Gupta, AHTU/SWwith Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr.Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket KumarSingh,AdvocatesalongwithSIShilpy Gupta, AHTU/SW

Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP forCBI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Amit KumarRana, AdvocatesCBI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Amit KumarRana, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R08.04.2025

CRL.M.A. 10829/2025 (for preponement of date of hearing)

1.For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same isallowed and the main writ petition is taken up on Board today itself, with theconsent of the parties.

2.The present application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

3.The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1]seeksthe transfer of investigation of FIR No. 184/2022, P.S. Safdarjung Enclaveto the Central Bureau of Investigation.[2]

4.The aforesaid FIR was registered following an application filed by thePetitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC, stating that his sister-in-law, Smt.Sheela had been missing since 9[th]March, 2021. The Petitioner disclosed thatSmt. Sheela had been residing at House No. 7, First Floor, Krishna Nagar,Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.[3]She was married to one Sh. Manjit,however, the couple had decided to live separately, after which Sh. Manjitleft the house, and currently resides at an undisclosed location, unknown tothe Petitioner. Following their separation, Smt. Sheela’s son, Sh. Vijender @Pappu, used to pay rent for the subject property to one Kuldeep Singh, whoclaimed to be the owner of the property, and resided in an adjacent property.

5.However, shortly after, Sheela’s son Pappu, unfortunately passedaway. After his death, the Petitioner and his wife began looking after Smt.Sheela. The Petitioner alleged that Smt. Sheela went missing on 9[th]March,2021, after which his wife, Smt. Jyoti, filed ‘missing complaint’ on 13[th]March, 2021 at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave. Despite this, the police took noaction to trace her whereabouts. In the complaint, the Petitioner specificallyaccused the landlord, Kuldeep Singh, along with two of his associates, ofpossibly being involved in the disappearance of Smt. Sheela, citing disputerelated to the subject property.

6.The Petitioner contends that even after the registration of theaforementioned FIR, the police have failed to conduct proper and thorough

1 “CrPC”

2 “CBI”

3 “subject property”

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

investigation, and to date, the whereabouts of Smt. Sheela have not beendetermined. The Petitioner further alleges that the police have exhibitednegligence in the discharge of their duties, thereby failing to fulfil theirobligations under the law. In view of these deficiencies, the Petitioner seeksthe transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

7.The Court has duly considered the aforesaid contentions. It ispertinent to note that FIR No. 184/2022, concerning the disappearance ofSmt. Sheela, was registered under Section 365 IPC at P.S. SafdarjungEnclave on 8[th]May, 2022. Following the registration of the FIR,investigation was conducted, and chargesheet/final report under Section173 CrPC was filed on 15[th]July, 2024. The chargesheet comprehensivelydetails the actions undertaken by the police during the investigation to trace

the whereabouts of Smt. Sheela, to the following effect:

“Her description and photograph were uploaded in Zonal IntegratedPolice Network System. This network is connected to eight adjoiningstates around Delhi.

Wireless Telegraph Message was flashed to All Superintendent ofPolice and all Station House Officer in India.

Hue and cry notices were pasted in all Railway Stations, Bus Terminals,Police stations notice board, and many markets in Delhi.

State Crime Record Bureau and National crime Bureau were informed.Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Information Commissionwere intimated.

Missing person squad Rohini, Delhi informed and their reply wasobtained. Her description and photograph were published in two nationalNEWS Papers, one in Hindi and one in English.

Police Head Quarters was announced Rupees 20,000/- reward who willgive the information about missing Smt. Sheela.

PCR Calls of the month of March 2021 of the Police Station SafdurjungEnclave were analysed. Copies of the Rojnamcha of Safurjung PoliceStation dated 06.03.2021 to 14.03.2021 were obtained. In which it waschecked whether any information was recorded from anywhere regardingSmt. Sheela or anything similar to her description etc.

Her family members were examined in Delhi and Tehri Utrakhand. Thefollowing persons were examined and their statements were recorded:Sitaram, Mohit, Rahul, Ram kumar Walia, Ranjan Kumar, Deep Singh,

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

Dinesh, Girish, Binita, Baldev, Jyoti, Urmila Devi, Sandeep, Shobha,Mahesh Baswal, Sunil Kumar, Dr. D. K. Yadav, Sulochna Devi, andManav Goel.

Accused Kuldeep Singh, Moti Lal Ashwal, Durgesh Pal were given noticeunder section 160 Cr.PC and all three were interrogated several times.CDR and location of 2021 of the three accused was also sought whichcould not be obtained due to lapse of two years. The previousinvolvement/conviction of these three accused was ascertained and as perrecords obtained, no previous criminal case was found against them.From the investigation so far, no evidence of any kind has been foundagainst these three. Accused Moti Lal Ashwal had expressed suspicion ona person named Vikas Tokas and he was interrogated but till now noevidence has come on file against him from the interrogation.Every effort was made to obtain CCTV footage around the missing houseand Safdurjung Enclave area but no footage could be found.

Where Smt. Sheela lived, she had only one way out of the house, whichwas through the main gate of the GTB apartment, where private guardwas hired by the society in the year 2021, whose name was Suraj. Policetried his best to search for Su raj only to find out that he had died.

Mortuary in-charges of many hospitals, Safdurjung Hospital, AllMSHospital, Deen Dayal Hospital were given notice U/S 91 Cr.PC andmortuary records were obtained.

The following Shelters homes were given notices under section 91 Cr.PCand their reply were obtained:

1. Society for promotion of youth & masses B-4 Vasant Kunj New Delhi.2. Society for promotion of youth & masses near masjid sector 4 RK Puram Delhi.

3. The Credence opposite fire station Hyatt Hotel RK Puram Delhi.

4. The Prerna social development & welfare society Adhcini Village NewDelhi.

5. Society for promotion of Youth & Masses Nizamuddin Delhi.

6. Padma shelter home, new swami dayanand coloney, Saria RohilaDelhi. 7. Shelter home Metia Khan Rani Jhansi Road Sadar Bazar Delhi.A notice under section 91 Cr.PC has been sent to the Director, Instituteof Mental Health, Agra Uttar Pradesh and IHBAS Hospital ShahdaraDelhi.

91 Cr.PC notices were given to the following four homes and their replywere obtained.

1. Old age home Bindapur, Delhi

2. Aashirwad old age home, Delhi

3. Sandhya home (for senior citizen), Delhi

4. Aaradhna home (senior citizen home for ladies), Delhi

In order to trace the missing Mrs. Sheela, the police sought informationfrom the above-mentioned Government departments, Hospitals, Mentalhomes, Orphanages, Old age homes, Night shelter homes, Non-Governmental Organizations, by sending information about the missing

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

Sheela’s appearance and photo, but despite tireless efforts, noting wasfound about her.

Honourable Delhi High Court has been monitoring the investigation ofthis case for the last several months. On 15.01.2024, the Hon’ble justicepassed written orders that the final report in this case would be filed.This case has become very old. An untraced report has been prepared inthis case. The information of which will be provided to the complainantthrough notice. If any clue of Mrs. Sheela is found in future, theinvestigation will be started again. The untraced report is being filed inthe concerned court. The court is requested to accept the untracedreport.”

8.The aforesaid portion of the chargesheet indicates that despitepersistent efforts, the police were unable to trace the whereabouts of Smt.Sheela, resulting in the filing of an untraced report. In response to specificquery by this Court as to whether the Petitioner pursued the remedy of filinga protest petition before the concerned Court with respect to the findings inthe final report, counsel for the Petitioner replies in negative and argues thatthis Court should review the final report and direct that investigation betransferred to the CBI. In support of this claim, he places reliance on thejudgement of the Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State ofGujarat & Ors.[4]

9.The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions, howeverremains unpersuaded. The Supreme Court, in several judgments, hasconsistently emphasized that directions for the CBI to conduct aninvestigation cannot be issued as matter of routine, merely because partyhas made allegations against the local police.[5]Such direction is anextraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly and only inexceptional circumstances. The Court, in State of W.B. v. Committee for

4 (2010) 2 SCC 200.

5 Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409; Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 12SCC 592.SCC 592.

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

Protection of Democratic Rights,[6]observed as follows:

“The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires greatcaution in its exercise.In so far as the question of issuing direction tothe CBI to conduct investigation in case is concerned, although noinflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not suchpower should be exercised but time and again it has been reiteratedthat such an order is not to be passed as matter of routine or merelybecause party has levelled some allegations against the local police.This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously andin exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to providecredibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incidentmay have national and international ramifications or where such anorder may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing thefundamental rights.Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with largenumber of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult toproperly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose itscredibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

10.In light of the foregoing principles laid down by the Supreme Court,and considering that the police in the present case have taken adequate stepsto trace the missing person, the Court does not find any reasonable basis totake the extraordinary step of issuing direction for the investigation to betransferred to the CBI.

11.The Petitioner has sought to place reliance on Rubabbuddin Sheikhto argue that the mere filing of the chargesheet does not preclude the Courtfrom directing the investigation to be transferred to the CBI or anyindependent agency. While the legal proposition advanced in the aforesaidjudgement is indeed correct, it is pertinent to emphasize that this Court’sdecision to decline the transfer of the investigation to the CBI is notpredicated upon the filing of the chargesheet. Rather, it is grounded in theabsence of any exceptional circumstances warranting such transfer. Forinstance, in Rubabbuddin Sheikh, the Petitioner alleged that his brother had

6 (2010) 3 SCC 571.

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023

been killed by local police officials, thereby creating legitimateapprehension that the investigation would not be conducted fairly orimpartially due to the involvement of the police. It was in light of theseextraordinary circumstances that the Supreme Court directed the transfer ofthe investigation to the CBI, to ensure fair and impartial investigation. Incontrast, the chargesheet in the present case demonstrates that the policeauthorities have undertaken reasonable and adequate steps to trace thewhereabouts of Smt. Sheela. However, despite these diligent efforts, theyhave been unsuccessful in locating her. Additionally, no allegations havebeen made regarding the involvement of the police in the disappearance ofSmt. Sheela. Therefore, the Court finds no grounds to conclude that theinvestigation is unfair or impartial, and thus, no basis exists to transfer thecase to the CBI.

12.Accordingly, in light of the facts and circumstances, the Court findsno merit in the present petition. However, should the Petitioner have anygrievances regarding the chargesheet/ final report under Section 173 of theCrPC, they are at liberty to approach the concerned Trial Court by way of aprotest petition.

13.With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of.

14.The next date of hearing fixed, i.e., 09[th]July, 2025 stands cancelled.

APRIL 8, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J

W.P.(CRL) 899/2023