नई दिल्ली। 2013 के विधानसभा चुनाव के दौरान में हुए मध्यप्रदेश के खिडकियां में दंगों के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मध्य प्रदेश के पूर्व राजस्व मंत्री कमल पटेल,सीबीआई और मध्य प्रदेश की शिवराजसिंह चौहान सरकार को नोटिस जारी किए है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ये नोटिस इन दंगों में कमल पटेल,उनके पुत्र सुदीप पटेल और उसके साथियों की भूमिका की सीबीआई जांच कराने की मांग को लेकर दायर याचिका की सुनवाई के बाद दिए है।
ये नोटिस सुप्रीम कोर्ट की मुख्य न्यायधीश व जस्टिस सीकरी कीखंडपीठ ने मंगलवार को जारी किए। दंगा को गाय की हत्या करने को लेकर फैला था। लेकिन सरकार वेटनरी विभाग ने गाय का पोस्टमार्टम किया तो पता चला किगाय की मौत प्लास्टिक खाने से हुई है। इस मामले मध्यप्रदेश की जबलपुर बैंच ने वहां दायर एक जनहित याचिका को डिस्पोज ऑफकर दिया था।हाईकोर्ट के इस अादेश के खिलाफ ये याचिका सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर की गई। याचिका अनुराग मोदी नामक शख्स ने दायर की है।याचिका कर्ता की ओर से वरिष्ठ वकील प्रशांत भूषण ने दलीलें पेश की
सारे मामले को जानने के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर हुई पूरी याचिका पढ़े यहां
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. …….. OF 2014
(Against the impugned final order and judgment dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.))
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANURAG MODI …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS …RESPONDENTS
SYNOPSIS
The present Special Leave Petition is preferred against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 in W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur, whereby the High Court was pleased to dispose off the writ petition filed by the Petitioner without granting any relief sought therein.
The said writ petition had raised the issue that on 19-09-2013, at approximately 09.00 a.m., on the pretext of killing of a cow by minority community under Chhipabad Police Station near Kheda and pahatgaon in Khirkiya Tehsil , a riot was instigated. The entire incident was stage managed and well-planned, attempted to be portrayed as one of communal nature. In fact, the cow had died of choking of Respiratory Pipe and asphyxia caused by large amount Polythene consumption. Although 54 persons lost their house, property and business and 12 F.I.R.s were registered initially yet none included the name of Kamal Patel sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA)of ruling BJP, his son Sudeep Patel and his party members who were the main conspirators and instigators.
The petitioner sought indulgence of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh for transferring the investigation to Central Beaurue of Investigation, as local police was aligning with the said Sri. Kamal Patel of ruling BJP, who along with the prime accused Surendra Sing Rajput alliea Tiger– who has been accused in all the 12 cases of rioting and still absconding – his son Sudeep Patel conspired for the riot.; though the prime accused was apprehended during the riot, he was allowed to abscond by the police. The petitioner had obtained various photographic evidences in this regard from the members of the public, which he annexed in his petition, as local police rather than taking those evidences on record had engaged in harassing those who had provided the evidences. The petitioner thus sought the intervention of the High Court so that no one is favored nor anyone is saved from the hands of law.
It is respectfully submitted that the High Court has grossly erred in concluding that the petitioner had ignored the notice dated 20.10.2013, issued u/s 160 of Cr. P. C. by the investigating officer of Chiapabad police Station, for recording the evidence with regard to the incident. In fact, the petitioner on receiving the notice on 24.10.2013, had given in writting that he had already informed the investigating officer that all the evidence that he had with him had already been submitted by him through the above mentioned Public Interest Litigation filed at the High Court and the investigating officer being one of the respondents in the petition is already in possession of all those evidences so he had nothing more to add to the record. The said notice along with its reply was submitted by the Respondent No.2 in its status report before the Hon’ble High Court and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court by the Petitioner’s Counsel while the impugned order was being dictated.
It is further submitted that the High Court has erred in concluding that the investigation in the all the case is complete. The process of an investigation cannot be said to be completed unless it is free and fair, taking all the aspects of the crime and conspiracy into account.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court has erred in ignoring the fact that the prime accused of all the 12 case of rioting – registered on the day of rioting – Surendra Sing Rajput allies Tiger is still absconding and, other than declaring the prize money, the police has made no effort to apprehend him. This raises the doubt that why he was allowed to abscond even though he was apprehended by the police when the riot broke out as is evident from documents submitted by the Petitioner along with the P.I.L.
Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput had been living in nearby Goshala for past few months and was brought for the purpose of instigating the riot, he had been found involved in earlier incidents of riot in the nearby vicinity. He was an active member of BJP and was very close to local MLA of BJP, Kamal Patel.
(i) That, though, the police has registered 12 criminal cases under various sections of the IPC, but has willfully ignored the fact that these incidents of riot, loot and arson were not isolated, rather parts of the chain of the same incident; the petitioner had alleged in its petition that local MLA of BJP, Kamal Patel’s and his son Sudip Patel along with the prime accused and his other party members has been instrumental in engineering the riot, just before the assembly elections.
It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has substantiated his allegation with strong evidence in the form of photographs taken by eye-witnesses showing conspiracy angle. The photographs showed, inter alia that:
a) The police remained a silent spectator while the prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput and other office bearers of the BJP had been indulging in instigating the mob before it could turn into a real riot.
b) Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput was apprehended by the police during riots; but later allowed to abscond.
c) Prime accused Surendra Singh Rajput was seen along with MLA Kamal Patel and his son Sudip Patel during riots instigating the mob.
d) Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput being close to local BJP, MLA, Kamal Patel.
e) Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput was involved in an earlier incident of riots; he was known for his involvement in the prior incident of riots in the proximity.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that though legislative assembly elections were at hand no effort was made to complete the investigation in a fair manner; the statement of the victim Shri Saeed Khan and his son Salman was recorded a month after the incident- on 20/10/2013.
Ultimately, Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the name of MLA Kamal Patel’s son Sudip Patel was added on 20/10/2013 – one month after the incident – after notice was issued by the Hon’ble High Court in the petition. Though his name was included in the crime, he was not arrested during the entire election process to the assembly election.
LIST OF DATES
Prior to
19.09.2013 Surendra Sing Rajput alias Tiger, the prime accused in all the 12 cases of rioting registered on 19.09.2013 at Chipabad police Station, was a close associate of the then sitting MLA of BJP from Harda Kamal Patel prior to the riot . Prior to the riot, i. e. 19.09.2013, he could be seen attending party functions with Kamal Patel.
19.09.2013 An FIR 215/13 was registered against one Munna Korku, Nyaj khan and Tajju Khan and others at 9.30 hrs. at Chipabad Police Station under section 295 and 429 of IPC and later in the day after riot erupted 12 FIRs were registered under section 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 323, 336, 353, 435 against various persons. Then sitting MLA Kamal Patel’s son Sudip Patel along with the Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput and local representative of the MLA along with other members of BJP were instigating the mob over death of a cow at village Chipabd and Khirkiya under Chipboard Police Station and themselves indulged in loot and arson. The police had apprehended the prime accused Surendra Sing Rajput but allowed him to run away. Photographs depicting MLA Kamal Patel’s son Sudip Patel along with the Prime accused Surendra Sing Sing Rajput, local representative of the MLA and other members of the ruling party instigating the mob is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-1
20.09.2013 A post mortem examination was performed on the deceased cattle and a postmortem report was prepared by veterinary hospital Harda opined that the cow died of “ asphyxia & respiratory failure due to ruminal tympany “. True copy of the post mortem report prepared by veterinary hospital Harda dated 20.09.2013 is annexed and marked as Annexure P- 2.
22.09.2013 The petitioner filed the W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notice in the same. A copy of the said petition dated 22.09.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3.
01.10.2013 On 01.10.2013 the Respondent No.2 filed their affidavit in reply; in the affidavit, they have not replied as to why they had not made local MLA Kamal Patel’s son Sudeep and his others associates as an accused. A copy of the said reply dated 01.10.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-4.
06.10.2013 The petitioner filed an Application for taking additional facts on record. Along with this Application photographs depicting the proximity of the prime accused Surendra Singh Rajput alias Tiger with the then local MLA Kamal Patel. True copy of the said Application for taking additional facts on record dated 07.10.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-5.
20.10.2013 Statements of the victim Shri Saeed Khan his son Salman Khan and Vijay were recorded and on the basis of that Kamal Patel’s son Sudeep Patel’s name was included as an accused in F.I.R. No. 224/13 and the petitioner was issued a notice of recording evidence under section 160 of Cr. P. C. by an investigating officer of Chipabad Police Station, who was investigating the crime registered in riot cases. A translated copy of the notice dated 20.10.2013 issued by an investigating officer to the Petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure P-6.
24.10.2013 The petitioner received the said notice on 24.10.2013. The petitioner on the same notice, while signing for the receipt, has recorded the following: “ I have already informed the investigating officer that all the evidence that he had with him had already been submitted by him through the instant Public Interest Litigation filed at the High Court and the investigating officer being one of the respondents in the petition is already in possession of all those evidences so he had nothing more to record”. The translated copy of above mentioned reply dated 24.10.2013 by the Petitioner to the notice dated 20.10.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-7.
02.12.2013 Respondents filed an additional reply annexing the above mentioned notice along with the Petitioner’s reply but stating wrong facts on record. A copy of the additional reply dated 02.12.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-8.
15.12.2013 The petitioner filed an application for amendment to the petition praying for the investigation to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, with the direction to look into the allegation of against now Ex-MLA Kamal Patel, his son Sudeep Patel and his supporters and other persons named in the petition and shown in the photographs attached in the rejoinder and additional documents. A copy of the Amendment Application dated 15.12.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-9.
07.05.2014 Respondents submitted status report, which confirms the fact that Surendra Sing Rajput allies Tiger is accused in all the cases and he is still absconding; besides him many of the other accused are also absconding. A copy of the reply filed by respondents dated 07.05.2014 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure P-10.
01.08.2014 The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose off W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) vide the impugned order on the wrongful assumption that the petitioner had ignored the notice dated 20.10.2013, issued u/s 160 of Cr. P. C. by the investigating officer of Chiapabad police Station, for recording the evidence with regard to the incident.
31.10.2012 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO._______OF 2014
(Against the impugned final order and judgment dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.))
IN THE MATTER OF:
BETWEEN : POSITION OF THE PARTIES
Before High Court Before this Hon’ble Court
ANURAG MODI PETITIONER PETITIONER
S/O P.D. MODI
R/O JOSHI COLONY,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HARDA, DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)
AND
- STATE OF M.P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VALLABH BHAWAN,
ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL (M.P.) RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
NO.1 NO.1
- DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
JEHANGIRABAD,
BHOPAL (M.P.) RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
NO.2 NO.2
- COLLECTOR, HARDA,
DISTRICT HARDA,
M.P. RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
NO.3 NO.3
4.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HARDA, DISTRICT HARDA,
M.P. RESPONDENT NO.4 RESPONDENT NO.4
- SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
TEHSIL & BLOCK KHIRKIYA,
DISTRICT HARDA
M.P. RESPONDENT NO.5 RESPONDENT NO.5
- THANA IN-CHARGE,
P.S. CHHIPABAD,
DISTRICT HARDA,
M.P. RESPONDENT NO.6 RESPONDENT NO.6
- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ACB BHOPAL,
ANVESHAN PARISAR, CHAR IMLI,
BHOPAL,
M.P. RESPONDENT NO.7 RESPONDENT NO.7
- KAMAL PATEL,
S/O HARINATH PATEL,
EX MLA,
R/O VILLAGE BARANGA,
P.S. CHHIPABAD,
DISTRICT HARDA,
M.P. RESPONDENT NO.8 RESPONDENT NO.8
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and
His companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India
The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present Special Leave Petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 in W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur, whereby the Hon’ble High Court disposed off the writ petition filed by the Petitioner without granting any relief sought therein.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
i. Whether in light of the fact the Petitioner had already submitted all the documents relating to the present matter in his possession before the Hon’ble High Court and the Respondents were thus in possession of their true copies, was the Petitioner required under Section 160, Cr.P.C. to again submit the copies of the same documents to the Respondent Police?
ii. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have disposed off the Writ Petition by wrongfully assuming certain facts and ignoring the documents filed by the Respondents.
iii. Whether the process of an investigation cannot be said to be completed unless it is free and fair?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):
The Petitioner states that no other Petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against the order dated 01.08.2014 in W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:
The annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents, which formed part of the record of the case in the High Court below against whose order leave to appeal is sought for in this Petition.
- GROUNDS:
- Because the Hon’ble High Court has grossly erred in concluding that the petitioner had ignored the notice dated 20.10.2013, issued u/s 160 of Cr. P. C. by the investigating officer of Chhipabad police Station, for recording the evidence with regard to the incident. In fact, the petitioner on receiving the notice on 24.10.2013, had given in writing that he had already informed the investigating officer that all the evidence that he had with him had already been submitted by him through the above mentioned Public Interest Litigation filed at the High Court and the investigating officer being one of the respondents in the petition is already in possession of all those evidences so he had nothing more to add to the record. The said notice along with its reply was submitted by the Respondent No.2 in its status report before the Hon’ble High Court and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court by the Petitioner’s Counsel while the impugned order was being dictated.
- Because the Hon’ble High Court has erred in concluding that all the investigation in the case is complete. The process of an investigation cannot be said to be completed unless it is free and fair, taking all the aspects of the crime and conspiracy into account.
- Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the prime accused of all the 12 case of rioting – registered on the day of rioting – Surendra Sing Rajput allies Tiger is still absconding and, other than declaring the prize money, the police has made no effort to apprehend him. This raises the doubt that why he was allowed to abscond even though he was apprehended by the police when the riot broke out as is evident from documents submitted by the Petitioner along with the P.I.L.
D. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the prime accused Surendra Singh Rajput had been living in nearby Goshala for past few months and was brought for the purpose of instigating the riot, he had been found involved in earlier incidents of riot in the nearby vicinity. He was an active member of BJP and was very close to local MLA of BJP, Kamal Patel.
- Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that though the police has registered 12 criminal cases under various sections of the IPC, but has willfully ignored the fact that these incidents of riot, loot and arson were not isolated, rather parts of the chain of the same incident; the petitioner had alleged that local MLA of BJP, Kamal Patel’s and his son Sudip Patel along with the prime accused and his other party members has been instrumental in engineering the riot, just before the assembly elections.
- Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has substantiated his allegation with strong evidence in the form of photographs taken by eye-witnesses showing conspiracy angle.
G. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that though election to general assembly election were at hand, no effort was made to complete the investigation in the fair manner; the statement of the victim Shri Saeed Khan and his son Salman was recorded a month after the incident- on 20/10/2013.
H. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the name of MLA Kamal Patel’s son Sudip Patel has been added on 20/10/2013 – one month after the incident – after notice was issued by the Hon’ble High Court in the petition. Though his name was included in the crime, he was not arrested during the entire election process to the assembly election.
6. GROUND FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
Nil.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
P R A Y E R
(a) grant this Petition for Special Leave to appeal against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 in W.P No. 17198 of 2013 (P.I.L.) passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur;
(b) pass any other or further order/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
8. INTERIM PRAYERS:
Nil.
PETITIONER
DRAWN BY: – PYOLI, ADVOCATE THROUGH:
FILED ON: ROHIT KUMAR SINGH
NEW DELHI COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
(3)
