IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ___________ OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

PANKAJ ARORA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

HARYANA POLICE …RESPONDENT

PAPERBOOK
[FOR INDEX, PLEASE SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:

Sh. Piyush Chhabra

Advocate
INDEX
 Sl. Particulars of Page No. of part Remark
No. Document to Which it s
belongs
Part I Part II
(contents (contents
of paper of file alone
book
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Office Report of
Limitation.
1. Listing Proforma. A- A-1
2. Cover Page of Paper A-2
Book.
3. Index of Record of A-3
Proceedings.
4. Limitation Report A-4
Prepared by the
Registry.
5. Defect List A-5
6. Note Sheet
7. List of Dates B-
8. Writ Petition with 1-
Affidavit
9. APPENDIX

10. ANNEXURE-P-1

11. ANNEXURE-P-2

12. ANNEXURE-P-3

13. ANNEXURE-P-4

14. ANNEXURE-P-5

15. ANNEXURE-‘P-6’

16. ANNEXURE-‘P-7’

17. ANNEXURE-‘P-8’
18. ANNEXURE-‘P-9’

19. ANNEXURE-‘P-10’

20. ANNEXURE-‘P-11’

21. ANNEXURE-‘P-12’

22. ANNEXURE-‘P-14’

23. ANNEXURE-‘P-15’

24. ANNEXURE-‘P-16’

25. ANNEXURE-‘P-17’

26. ANNEXURE-‘P-18’

27. ANNEXURE-‘P-19’

28. ANNEXURE-‘P-20’

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION: X

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

Central Act: (Title)

Section: .

Central Rule: (Title) N/A

Rule No(s): N/A

State Act: (Title) N/A

Section: N/A

State Rule: (Title) N/A

Rule No(s): N/A

Impugned Interim Order: (Date) N/A

Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date) N/A

High Court: (Name): N/A

Names of Judges: N/A

Tribunal/Authority: (Name) N/A

____________________________________________________________

1. Nature of matter: Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1: Pankaj Arora

(b) e-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile Phone number: N/A

3. (a) Respondent No.1: State of Haryana & Ors.

 (b) e-mail ID: N/A

(c) Mobile Phone number: N/A

4. (a) Main category classification: 18

(b) Sub classification: 1807

5. Not to be listed before: N/A

6. Similar/Pending matter:

A-2
7. Criminal Matters:

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No

(b) FIR No. N/A Date: N/A

(c) Police Station: N/A

(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A

(e) Sentence Undergone: N/A

8. Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: N/A

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: N/A

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: N/A

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N/A

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): N/A

Senior Citizen>65 years SC/ST Woman/child Disabled

Legal Aid case In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):
N/A

11. Decided case with citation: N/A

Date: .10.2021 ( )
Advocate for the Petitioner
Registration No.
 SYNOPSIS

: The present Writ Petition is being preferred by the

Petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter

alia praying to enforce fundamental rights, particularly the

Right to Life under Article 21 & Equal protection of law

under Article 14 guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and believe in law and

justice, and that the complainant got his son Yash Arora

admitted to Medanta Medicity Hospital for the first time on

27 October 2010 for treatment and where complainant was

intimated that the victim was suffering from end stage liver

disease and thus needed liver transplantation. On the

direction of Ex-CM of Haryana Mr. B.S. Hudda due to the

weak financial conditions of victim family, the deceased was

provided treatment on discounted rates. Due to the

discounted surgery the hospital was not attentive to the

victim and proper protocol was not adhered because of

which the victim lost his life. There are manipulations as

well as tampering in medical records to hide their

negligence. Mostly radiology or cath lab diagnoses of

deceased are not mentioned in billing/ discharge summary

details which are mentioned in medical record. That the

investigation had been compromise as the police officials

accepted the pressure of considerable in the closing of

investigation due power and influence of Medanta hospital

and resultant the investigation was not completed by the

police in due time. The total wrongs which were pointed by

the complainant are 64 but the FIR which is presented in

the official web site of Haryana police there are only 25

wrongs mentioned. This amounts to official’s misconduct

make police officials liable for destructing the evidence and

the police officials are not only saving the accused persons

but also committing criminal offence.

: During investigation the medical board P.G.I.M.E.R

Chandigarh has not considered the entire documents of

treatment of the deceased child, and a non-speaking report

was submitted by the Board to the Investigating Officer. In

view of the illegal amendment in the FIR to save the culprits,

non-speaking report of the Medical Board and the

Investigating Officer, the case got further investigated from

some Senior Police Officers who again failed to investigate

in reasonable manner as the report was still not submitted

by ACP Sadar, Gurugram in last 3 years which led to

violation of fundamental rights i.e., right to fair trial and

investigation under Article 21. The petitioner states that the

irreparable loss has been caused by the act of the

respondent by making false, frivolous and baseless

investigation.
 LIST OF DATES

17.01.2015: A FIR No. 46 of 2015 dated 17.01.2015

registered with the Gurgaon, Sadar Police Station for

the offences punishable under Section

304/304A/468/471/34 I.P.C. It is relevant to

mention here that the respondents failed to arrest the

accused person. Concerned police officials seem to

have decided not to take action against the accused

persons in accordance with the laws and such they

have been deliberately and willfully delayed the

completion of investigation in the matter and

obstructing the course of justice in order to save the

accused person from being prosecuted in the said

matter.

19.10.2015: The information or reply no-3 provided by the

AIIMS Delhi vide letter as mentioned below: “in the

post-transplant phase, all liver transplant patients are

initially managed in the liver intensive care and then

shifted toward where each patient is kept in isolation

room and strict nursing precaution are followed.”

07.09.2017: I.O has filed a closure report containing

certain action purported to have been taken by I.O,

which are not as per law and devoid of any merits

towards proper and sound investigation.

30.08.2018: Vide order dated 30.08.2018, passed by the

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that copy of the

original FIR has been placed on record has been

illegally changed, on the office website of Haryana

Police and a different FIR is there. In view of the illegal

amendment in the FIR to save the accused, non-

speaking report of the Medical report and the

Investigating Officer, the case be got further

investigated from some Senior Police Officers. It was

directed that the matter be further investigated by

ACP, Sadar, Gurugram, who shall get a Medical Board

constituted, and get their opinion, on all the aspects

of medical negligence alleged by the complainant.

04.01.2019: Case was fixed for filing detailed report as

well as notice to investigating officer. Status report

filed. Now the case is adjourned to 23.01.2019 for

consideration.

02.09.2019: An application for exemption from personal

appearance filed on behalf of complainant. Let a

separate letter be written to the ACP, Sadar,

Gurugram for compliance of the order dated

30.08.2018 passed by the learned predecessor court.

04.10.2019: Vide order dated 04.10.2019, passed by the

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that ACP, Sadar,

 Gurugram moved a written request to grant some time

so that a report may be taken from the fresh medical

Board in compliance of the order dated 30.08.2018.

25.11.2019: Vide order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the

JMFC that report of ACP, Sadar not received, neither

anybody has appeared before the court on behalf of

ACP. Now court notice to ACP, Sadar be issued for

13.13.2019 for compliance of order dated 30.08.2019

passed by the learned predecessor of this court.

07.03.2020: Vide order dated 07.03.2020, passed by the

learned ACJM, Gurugram that status report has been

filed. Now to come up on 31.03.2020 for filing awaiting

compliance report.

...10.2021: Hence, the Present Writ Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ___________ OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

PANKAJ ARORA, 38
S/O LATE SHRI INDERJEET SINGH
R/O 27/1, D1-D2,
DOCTOR COLONY,
CIVIL LINES,
RUDRAPUR (U. S. NAGAR)
UTTRAKHAND- 263153
PHONE: 8950274990 …PETITIONER
VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA,
DEPARTMENT HOME
AFFAIRS, MANTRALAYA, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ARTICLE 14

& 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF THE PETITIONER BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF AN

APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN

THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND/OR

CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR

 DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 R/W 14 & 21 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND

HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner, who is a law aiding citizen, being prefer

the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, inter alia praying to enforce

fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Life & Right to

Equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The

Petitioner is a common individual who have faith upon the

services of hospitals and public authorities, resulted, the

service of hospitals and public authorities destroyed the

faith of petitioner upon the existing system, Medanta the

medicity constantly with connivance of the Authorities, by

misusing the dominant position, implicating and ignoring

their liabilities, and act of suppressing the authorities by

continued to disobeyed the numerous orders of the District

Court of Gurgaon to investigate and others, as having been

intended to suppress the right to fair trial and investigation

of the Petitioner, also gross violation of the mandate of

fundamental and constitutional rights of the Petitioner, as

enshrined under the Articles of the Constitution of India. It

is imperative to mention here that the constantly

implication (as delay in investigation of almost 3 year) of the

Petitioner, under the pressure of Medanta (one of the

influential party in State), due to this, the illegal

encouragement, started suppressing the public authorities

to not comply with investigation and framing the false

investigation report or replying the question of investigation

in two lines only, but due to partiality of Authority in

duration of investigation, has witnesses the delay of

investigation from two month to almost 3 year and still, the

details of investigation has not been submitted by the ACP

Sadar, Gurugram.

: The brief facts and background giving rise to the

filing of this petition are narrated below:

2. That the petitioner got his son Yash Arora admitted to

Medanta Hospital for the first time on 27.10.2010 for

treatment. The copy of discharge summary dated

29.10.2010 is annexed here in as ANNEXURE NO:__ .That

the son of the petitioner was suffering from liver disease.

The investigation was done by Dr. Neelam Mohan at

Medanta Hospital.
3. That, in mid of November 2010, the petitioner was

suggested the liver transplant for saving victims life and the

success rate was told to be 95% by Dr. Neelam Mohan but

when the petitioner stated his financial condition the

surgery was procrastinated till mid of March 2011.

4. That with the help of CM Uttrakhand discount was

given to the petitioner and the victim was admitted for third

time on 16.03.2011 and the first liver was donated by

petitioner’s wife (Mini Arora mother of victim Yash Arora).

It was total 21 days package as the petitioner was told that

child will be kept in hospital for 21 days after surgery.

5. That the petitioner’s son was discharged on 15th day

(post operate Day-15) i.e. 1.04.2011 in fever and CMV

(Cytomegalovirus) infection and acute graft infection and

when the petitioner questioned about the same was told

that he is not a doctor and that it was common in liver

transplant cases.

6. That the staff of the hospital know that the victim was

the discounted patient and seeing the implication of surgery

and to escape from another charity treatment, they were

negligent towards the treatment of the victim.

7. That on the post transplantation day 14th (i.e.

31.03.2011) HAT developed and was detected which could

be seen in protocol USG Doppler surveillance DUSL but it

was ignored and left untreated where as it is well know that

the risk of HAT increases every 10 minutes but doctors

ignored the same and left the victim untreated.

8. That because of continuous negligent on behalf of the

hospital towards the victim that multiple times the patient

was admitted but every time the victim was ignored like on

12.07.2011 the victim was discharged directly from the ICU

in a very critical condition. That the victim remained in pain

and on the night of 24.07.2011 upon protest by the

petitioner the accused Dr. Neelam Mohan admitted the

victim for sixth time in emergency but by then the victim’s

kidney was also damaged and then all his organs started

failing and on 30.07.2011, the victim was removed from

ventilators and declared dead.

9. The role of the authorities is anarchist, is established,

at the time when the order of District Court on 30.08.2018

with the time of two-month duration for investigation and

their submission on 30.10.2018 as next date of hearing has

fixed and in sequences of this event the order get ignored

by the authorities which led to the almost 3 years of delay

and still the picture of the investigation not visualized.

10. That our democratic system is being triggered by our

Constitution, distractive function is showing the complete

failure of law and regulation, depriving the liberty of the

Petitioner, which amounts to the fatal of the trust of the

people in the State machinery, suppress the voice of the

people, is one of the part, against the fundamental rights,

is being infringed. The Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen of

the state with the absence of any contrary background.

11. That the Respondent No. 1 is a State with the meaning

of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and having overall

control over the State of Haryana. The Respondent No. 2 is

the Assistant Commissioner of Police, appointed by the

State of Haryana, under the provision of the Haryana Police

Act, 2007 is the duty bound to protect the citizen of the

State, as enshrined under the Constitution of India, without

bias and any influence of parties of the case.

12. That the Petitioner is being aggrieved by rigorous

attitude of the machinery of the authority, as haunted by

the powers, dissatisfied by the illegal acts of the

Respondents, invoking the Article 32 of the Constitution of

India, inter alia praying writs/order and/directions against

the Respondents to disclose all details of investigations

done in the light of the medical negligence (if ACP is not of

capable that of much) and further to direct the Central

Bureau of Investigation or any other competent authority

of Delhi Govt. to investigate properly, in true sense, all the

casual investigation in which the Petitioner has been

implicated as strong delay in the procedure, disposition of

matter and in justice and restraining the Respondents from

interfering in to the investigation and misusing their

dominant position to alter the flow of interrogation and

inquiries.

13. That in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in

the case “DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA” as

reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160, wherein this Hon’ble Court

has inter alia held and observed that the purpose of transfer

is that there has to be fair investigation and fair trial.

However, the fair investigation could have not been

fructified by the Haryana, as they have biased, under the

pressure of Medanta the medicity without intervention by

this Hon’ble Court, no fair investigation could be finalized

by the Local Authorities.

14. That the petitioner submitted a complaint to SHO P.S

sadar, Gurgaon on 28.07.2014 which was received vide

DD.No. 182-5D, however, despite repeated requests made

to police staff, no FIR was registered on his behalf against

the accused persons Further, that the glaring examples

herein, the FIR No.46/2015, Police Station Sadar,

Gurugram is a detailed FIR in which there are specific

allegation of medical negligence, which have not been

discussed by the Medical Board. Hence, the report of the

Medical Board is non-speaking. Apart from the medical

negligence, there were false allegations of professional

misconduct by the accused and cancellation report is

equally non-speaking, in which there is one-line operative

portion, which says that the cancellation report is being

written in the case as per report of the Medical Board. There

are no findings of the Investigating Officer. Also, it is

pertinent to mention that the complaint has placed on

record two different copies of the same FIR No.46/2015,

P.S.Sadar, Gurugram and allegedly there is some

manipulation in FIR in light of this fact the investigation

has been done even by the ACP Sadar, Gurugram.

The parameter has been followed by Public Authorities and

the Medical Board in relation to the investigation of the

matter is a complete violation of law laid down by this

Hon’ble Court in “SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. CBI”, as

reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 682, the Apex

Court has ruled that any investigation into crime should be

fair and should not be tainted. It has been further held that

Rule of Law is a facet of equality under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, further investigation is

required in the present case by some other authorities.

15. That the State Police, under the pressure of Medanta

the medicity and under their influence and illegal

enragement and started framing the matter of medical

negligence casually, even the operative portion of the report

of the Medical Board seeks to established saying that “After

detailed deliberations the Medical Board concludes that the

procedure was undertaken after taking consent. The

medical records also reveal due diligence in the treatment

protocols”. The medical board has not given any detail of

the reasoning which led to the conclusion that due diligence

was observed by the accused. The dire consequences and

illegal act of the Authorities and have constantly violated

the mandate of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights, as

envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as

the equal protection of law. The Police Machinery are used

by Medanta the medicity to hassle and harass the Petitioner

and continue in delaying of the investigation. Ray of hope

for fair investigation is being diminished, as disaster

performance of the police officials, itself reveals, could not

be materialized, the fair investigation by the local police.

16. That it is submitted that upon the perusal of FIR and

the facts of this case a prima facie case is made out against

the accused. There are several facts which do not require

medicial opinion and further the police has delayed or

misconducted the investigation as they are influenced by

the accused persons.

17. That the cancellation report as submitted by the

investigation agency outright merit rejection in the limelight

of bias and impartial conduct. It is submitted that there has

been collusion between the accused and the investigation

agency, and the whole investigation has been a sham and

used for protection of the accused.

18. That the cancellation report as submitted by the

investigating agency outright merit rejection as it has been

filled without any proper and fair investigation. It is

submitted that the I.O has failed to comply with the

procedure of the investigation as contemplated under

Section 167 Cr.PC with malafide intention to let accused

Scott free. It is submitted that the I.O has not collected

evidence from the crime scene and has been unwilling to

make any arrests despite the FIR of the complainant.

19. That the petitioner reiterates that the investigation

was shoddy and made up with an ulterior motive of

safeguarding the accused. There was complete inaction and

irresponsibility on behalf of police officials. That same effort

still continues by the I.O and the supervising officers to

cover up their flaws and misdeeds.

20. That the investigating agency failed for one and half

year to ascertain the appropriate forum from where expert

opinion regarding negligence in pediatric liver transplant

would be proceed. Investigation officer had filed closure

report on relying on the bias and false opinion of

P.G.I.M.E.R Chandigarh where as it is sufficient to prove

the prima facie of the negligent constructed.

21. That the violation of protocol was enough to establish

that the case of negligence as no action was taken by police

officials in contravention of established principle of law and

this tantamount to inconvenience to the petitioner. In light

of the aforementioned fact it is evident that proper

investigation was not conducted by the police officials.

22. That the police officials are under grave influence of

the accused persons and the petitioner sees no light of hope

of fair investigation and hence respectfully seeks the

transfer of investigation to other appropriate agency for fair

investigation in the present matter.

23. That the petitioner as submitted as many as 64

offences committed by the accused were mentioned in the

original FIR, but the concerned police officials in

connivance with the accused made material deletion in the

FIR. The copy of the original FIR has been placed on record

as ANNEXURE NO_. The same has been illegally changed,

on the office website of Haryana police and a different FIR

is there, which have been placed as ANNEXURE NO_.

24. That the medical board P.G.I.M.E.R Chandigarh has

not considered the entire documents of treatment of the

deceased child, and a non-speaking report was submitted

by the Board to the Investigating Officer. In view of the

illegal amendment in the FIR to save the accused, non-

speaking report of the Medical Board and the I.O, the case

be got further investigated from some Senior Police Officers.

25. That the police official appointed by the court i.e. ACP

Sadar, Gurugram has failed to submit its report till today

which shows the grave level of negligence by the police and

its authority which ultimately led to huge violation of

Fundamental Right of the petitioner.

That the present Writ Petition involves the following

substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution:

I. Whether, the Haryana Police has conducted fair

investigation in light of the Orders passed by the

Hon’ble District Court, without biased, impartial

or without influence of Medical authorities,

violates the rights of the Petitioner?

II. Whether State Machinery has followed the

parameter settled by this Hon’ble Court during

the directions to investigate the matter and

establishment of Board violates the rights of the

Petitioner, as enshrined under Articles 14, and

21 of the Constitution of India?

26. That the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

seeking protection of their fundamental rights on the

following grounds:

GROUNDS

A. Because the Fundamental rights, particular the right

to Life and Right to Equality guaranteed by the

constitution of India is being infringed. The petitioner

is a father of the deceased Yash Arora who died in

Medanta the medicity Hospital because of the Medical

Negligence performed by the Doctor in treating

deceased suffering from “End Stage Liver Disease” as

the doctors failed to perform their duty to care towards

the deceased. The plaintiff was told that the Victim will

be kept in hospital for 21 days after the 1st liver

donation but the deceased was left untreated and was

discharged on 15th days (Post operate day). That after

reaching home the victim’s temperature was rising

then the plaintiff contacted Dr. Neelam Mohan and

she prescribed certain medicines and told its normal

but the fever continued for 3 days then the plaintiff

took the victim to the hospital where Dr. Neelam

prescribed some test but did not perform any USG

Doppler or CT scan rather provided some IV antibiotic

drugs and did not re-admit the victim. The victim was
 also delayed 14 days for treatment as the CMV

(qualitative) was released late and the victim was also

continuously administered the urokinase drug and

Immunosuppressant Tacrolimus orally which is

dangerous for kidney. This led to the death of the

victim hereby the Fundamental rights i.e Right to Life

under Article 21 and Equal protection of law under

Article 14 is been violated.

B. Because the surgery of the deceased was done on the

discounted rates on the direction of EX CM of Haryana

after this the behavior and attitude of the hospital

towards the patient was negligent as after post-

surgery protocol say’s that the patient should be kept

in isolation ward but in present case the victim was

given shared bed because of that the utmost care was

not performed by the hospital which led to the death

of the victim.

C. Because the State Police, under the pressure of the

political and under their influence, started fabricating

investigation with intention of malafide and

deliberately with full knowledge. The dire

consequences and negligence act of the police officials

have constantly violated Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. The police Machinery are used by the

petitioner to hassle and harass the petitioner.

D. Because the fabricated investigation of the police the

petitioner most respectfully submits that he has lost

the faith in the Haryana Police, as biased, and firmly

believes that the case would not be fairly investigated.

E. Because the investigation has been compromised by

the action of police due to the power and influence of

Medanta The Medicity hospital and also the copy of

the FIR has been tampered by the police officers which

shows the violation of right to fair trial and

investigation enshrined under Article 21 of the

constitution of India.

F. Because the state within the meaning of Article 12 of

constitution of India and having overall control over

the state of Haryana. The ACP, Sadar appointed by the

Judicial order, he is duty bound to protect the citizen

of the state, as enshrined under the constitution of

India, without bias and any influence and political

pressures but the same has not been performed in the

present case.

G. Furthermore, in NIRMAL SINGH KAHLON V. STATE

OF PUNJAB (2009) 1 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Apex Court

was pleased to observe that the right to fair

investigation and trial is applicable to the accused as

well as the victim and such a right to a victim is

provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted

hereunder: "28. An accused is entitled to a fair

investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are

concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of

an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e., to

maintain law and order, public order and preservation

of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a

crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation.

H. Further in the case of A.V. BELLARMIN V. MR. V.

SANTHAKUMARAN NAIR (2015) the court observed

that the Free and Fair Investigation and Trial is

enshrined in Article 14, 21 and 39-A of the

Constitution of India. It is the duty of the state to

ensure that every citizen of the country should have

the free and fair investigation and trial. The preamble

and the constitution are compulsive and not

facultative, in that free access to the form of justice is

integral to the core right to equality, regarded as a

basic feature of our Constitution. Therefore, such a

right is a constitutional right as well as a fundamental

right. Such a right cannot be confined only to the

accused but also to the victim depending upon the

facts of the case. Therefore, such a right is not only a

constitutional right but also a human right. Any

 procedure which comes in a way of a party in getting

a fair trial would in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

I. Also in K.V. RAJENDRAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF

POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE, OF POLICE, (2013) 12

SCC 480, this Court has noted few circumstances

where the Court could exercise its constitutional

power to transfer of investigation from State Police to

CBI such as: (i) where high officials of State authorities

are involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is

against the top officials of the investigating agency

thereby allowing them to influence the investigation,

or (iii) where investigation prima facie is found to be

tainted/biased.

J. After all, the role of the Court is to find the truth as

every trial is journey towards it. Thus, merely because

an investigation is defective and that too on a

technical ground, a person charged with an offence

cannot be acquitted as a matter of course (See DAYAL

SINGH V. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL, (2012) 8 SCC

263, STATE OF GUJARAT V. R.A. MEHTA, (2013) 1

MLJ 362 (SC) and HEM RAJ V. STATE OF HARYANA,

(2014) 2 SCC 395.

K. Thus, the petitioner contends that investigation of the

instant case should be transfer to appropriate

 authority to ensure complete justice and to remove all

the ambiguity of biasness, delay in the instant case.

L. Because the petitioner is being aggrieved by rigorous

attitude of the machinery of the state authority, as

haunted by the powers, dissatisfied by the illegal acts

of the respondents, invoking the Article 32 of the

constitution of India, inter-alia praying writs / orders

and directions to investigate by the Centre Bureau of

Investigation or any other appropriate authority.

M. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition

before this Hon’ble Court or any other court seeking
the same relief.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances stated

hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction thereby

directing the Respondent to transfer the further

investigation to CBI or any other appropriate authority

in Delhi NCR.

(b) Pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction thereby

directing and/ or appointing the Central Bureau of

Investigation and any appropriate authority with a

direction to further investigation.

(c) Pass an appropriate Writ/order or direction thereby

directing and or appointing the Central Bureau of

Investigation and any appropriate authority to

investigate the case in which the petitioner’s

Fundamental Rights has been violated.

(d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in light of the facts and

circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL,

AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

DRAWN BY:
FILED BY: PIYUSH CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN ON:
FILED ON: