QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN PARAMBIR SINGH’S CASE

 QUESTIONS  AND ANSWERS IN PARAMBIR SINGH’S CASE

 

The answers are based on the opinion given by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, who represented one of the petitioner Sh. Ghanshyam Upadhyay.

Question: 1. When Maharashtra State Government has appointed retired Judge and constituted a commission of Inquiry then can a CBI investigation be order.

2. Can both the thing go simultaneously without there being an F.I.R., can the High Court order investigation by C.B.I.

Answer:  Similar issue is decided by the Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida (2011) 6 SCC 508.

In that case the State Government already constituted a commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Murtaza Hussain and there was no F.I.R.

The Supreme Court asked the State Government to treat the petition as an F.I.R. and give its consent for C.B.I. investigation.

Lastly Supreme Court itself ordered investigation through C.B.I. (Para 6 & 42 are important)

Bombay High Court Division Bench headed by Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud in the case of Provident Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Hemlata 2012 (3) MH. L.J. 359, had ordered C.B.I. inquiry when No F.I.R. was registered.

Bombay High Court in Charu Kishor Mehta’s case (2010) SCC OnLine Bom 1794, had exercised its power under Art. 226 and directed the registration of F.I.R. and investigation by EOW.  

So there is no prohibition in that regard.

Question 2: Why Home Minister Anil Deshmukh is not made respondent by Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay.

Answer: As per Supreme Court Judgment in Dinubhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 626, the accused will have no say on the issue of investigation by the C.B.I.

Other law is laid down in Ramesh Sobati Vs. State  2017 SCC Online Cal 8424.

Question: Parambirsingh is having personal enemity against Home Minister Anil Deshmukh therefore his complint cannot be relied.

Answer: This question is answered by the  Supreme Court in catena of judgments and more particularly in the case of M. Narayandas Vs. State Of Karnataka 2004 Cr. L. J. 822 (SC)  where it is ruled that The High Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation or render a finding on question of malafides. Even if the Appellant had made the complaint on account of personal vendetta that by itself was not a ground to discard the complaint which had to be tested and weighed after the evidence was collectedas under;

“Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. …..

*****

For this reason the submission cannot be accepted. If as claimed there is no substance in the complaint the investigation will say so. At this stage there were only allegations and recriminations. The High Court could not have anticipated the result of the investigation or rendered a finding on question of malafides. Even if the Appellant had made the complaint on account of personal vendetta that by itself was not a ground to discard the complaint which had to be tested and weighed after the evidence was collected. ”

 

Download the citation.