Mr Nishant Sharma, complainant, shall be added as a respondent to these proceedings. Criminal Writ Petition and proceedings before the High Court 3 The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email from Mr Nishant Kumar Sharma, addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar General. The email detailed criminal complaints filed by him in Gurugram after an alleged attack on him, and subsequent instances of intimidation to compel him to withdraw them. On 10 November 2023, the High Court issued notice, directed the two SPs (Kangra and Shimla) to file status reports and appointed an amicus curiae 6 Status reports were filed on 16 November 2023 before the High Court. The status report submitted by SP, Shimla, stated that the said FIR 98/2023, under Sections 299, 469, 499 and 505 of the IPC was registered on a complaint made by the petitioner to the SHO, Police Station East, District Shimla. The High Court flagged its concern at that stage in the following terms : “(i) there is material detected in the investigation, as pointed out in the status report of the respondent No.3, which showed that the Director General of Police had also been in continuous contact with Y, the alleged business partner of the complainant (with whom the complainant has disputes); (ii) the Director General of Police had put the complainant under surveillance; (iii) that Director General of Police also made missed calls on 27.10.2023 (the date of incident on Mcleodganj alleged by the complainant) to the complainant’s mobile phone and also spoke to him on that day; and (iv) the Director General of Police had himself got registered an FIR No.98/2023 dt. The High Court then proceeded to observe that the material collected by the SP, Shimla indicated prima facie that the Director General of Police: (i) Had been in touch with “Y”, the alleged business partner of the complainant; (ii) Had made 15 missed calls in an effort to contact the complainant on 27 October 2023; (iii) Had spoken to the complainant on 27 October 2023 and after he refused to come to Shimla, the complainant was threatened in an incident at Mcleodganj; (iv) Placed the complainant under surveillance; and (v) Lodged FIR No 98/2023 on 4 November 2023 against the complainant 15 This Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for recall of the High Court’s order dated 26 December 2023. 18
By the impugned order, the High Court also rejected an application filed by the SP Kangra, to implead her and to recall its earlier order dated 26 December 2023 by which she was also directed to be moved out of the post.
Allegedly, the dispute had taken an ugly turn when scandalous allegations were made by the complainant against “Y”, following which, on 9 October 2023, an email was addressed by “Y” to the petitioner to take action against the complainant. The High Court noted that the status report submitted by the SP Shimla indicated the continuing contact of “Y” with the petitioner between September and November 2023 and that the SHO, Palampur had approached the complainant requiring him to call up the land line number of the petitioner.
The status report filed by the SP Shimla on 4 January 2023 alleged that the petitioner was intimidating in his conduct towards the Investigating Officer handling the case initiated by FIR No 98/2023 filed at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant. In subsequent communications to the Chief Secretary on 10 August 2023 and 1 September 2023, the petitioner alleged negligence in the post-blast investigation by the SP Shimla and requisitioned the NSG for investigation, suspecting the use of an IED including RDX which was allegedly detected at the site of the blast.
The consequence of the impugned order is that: (i)
The earlier order of the High Court directing that the petitioner should be shifted out of the post of DGP, Himachal Pradesh stands revived; (ii) The State Government has been directed to consider forming a Special Investigation Team consisting of IG level officers to coordinate the investigation of all the FIRs; and (iii) The grant of protection to the complainant has been directed to be evaluated by the Government.
The proceedings were triggered by an email addressed by the complainant to the Chief Justice imputing allegations of the misuse of his official position as DGP against the petitioner. 32
By this Court’s order dated 3 January 2024, the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of a recall application before the High Court since his grievance was the denial of an opportunity to be heard before the High Court, before it passed the order dated 26 December 2023. The High Court has, in the course of its order, also relied on the earlier status reports which were referred to in its order dated 26 December 2023. 36
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=652
The High Court has directed the State Government to consider constituting an SIT so that an objective and fair investigation can take place.
Instead of and in place of the direction of the High Court requiring the State Government to consider constituting an SIT, we issue a direction to the State Government to do so. 39 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Case Title: SANJAY KUNDU Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (2024 INSC 43)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-000550-000551 / 2024
