1 REPO RTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIG INAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 103 OF 2009 HIMANSHU KUMAR AND O THERS … Petitioner (s) Versus STATE OF CHHA TTISGARH AND OTH ERS …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T J.B. PA RDIWA LA, J. : 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relates to the alleged massacre that took place on 17 th September 2009 and 1 st October 2009 respectively in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad a nd Belpocha respectiv ely situ ated in the district of Dantewada, State of Chhattisgarh. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by t he Chhattisgarh Govern ment) an d th e Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF 2 and the CoBRA Battalions are responsible for the alleged brutal massacre of the tribals in the respective villages referred to above. 3. In the aforesaid context, the writ peti tioners have prayed for the fo llowi ng reliefs : “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to have the CBI take over the investigation and prosecution with respect to the complaints made by the petit ioners and others with r espect to th e massacres that took place on 17.9.2009 and 1.10.2009 as set out in this petition; (b) Pass an order directing the payment of compensation to the victims and their families for the extra judicial executions, for the lo oting of their propertie s, for the b urning of their houses and other losses suffered by the victims on account of the unlawful activities of the respondents and their agents; (c) Pass any such further order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit an d proper in the facts an d circu m stan ces stated herein above.” 4. By way of the Criminal M.P. No. 3173 of 2010, further reliefs have been prayed for as under : “(a) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to constitute and notify a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Shr i Sanka r Sen (IPS) Dr.K.S.Subramanian, IPS and Mr.Rajneesh Rai, DIG and such other officers as the SIT may deem necessary with additional directions for the proper functioning of the SIT as given by the Supreme Court in the case of NHRC vs. State of Gujara t (2009 ) 6 S CC 342, 767). (b) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to 3 produce Petitioners 2 -12 at Delhi and hand them over to Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for Services, ‘Shubham’, C -25, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delh i; (c) Order permitting the pe titio ner no.1 and the advocates for the petitioner no.1 along with their interpreters to meet the petitioners 2 -12 at the Guild for Services, New Delhi in the presence of Dr.Mohini Giri; (d) Order requesting Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for S ervices , New Delhi, to interview the petitioners and make a report to this Court.” 5. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be summarised as under : 6. The writ petitioner no.1, namely Himanshu Kumar, claims himse lf to be running an NGO i n the n am e o f Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, Kanwalnar – Dantewada Chhattisgarh. He claims to be running an NGO for the welfare and development of the tribals residing in the Bastar region. He also claims to be rendering help to the other tribals of the Dantewada distric t of Chhattisgarh. 7. The writ petitioners nos. 2 to 13 respectively are the kith and kin of the victims of the alleged massacre. 8. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that after the two horrifying incidents referred to above, the tribals are in a state of sh ock. They constantly remain under the fear of being killed by the Special Forces referred to above. 9. It is his case that with a view to help the tribals and seek justice for them, he took up the cause and thought f it to prefer 4 the present wr it peti tion s eeking an investigation into the alleged massacre through the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) and an appropriate compensation to be paid to the victims and their families. 10. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that he helped the trib als to lodge their respective complaints as reg ards the alleged mass killings that took place on 17 th September 2009 and 1 st October 2009 respectively. 11. According to the petitioner no.1, the tongue and other parts of the body, such as, the upper limbs, lower limbs, etc. of the family members o f the petitioners nos.2 to 13 respectively were chopped off by the security force. It is alleged that the security forces did not spare even the infants. It is also alleged that the breast of a 70 -year -old tribal wo man w ere chopped off and was stabbed to d eath b y the members of the police forces. It is also alleged that a 2 -year -old infant was brutally murdered. The houses of the tribals were burnt. Money and properties were looted. 12. It has been further pointed ou t th at on 8 th January 2009, 19 people were kill ed by the above referred forces at the village Singaram, Tehsil Konta, District Dantewada. 13. On 18 th March 2008, 3 tribals were killed at Matwada, Salwa Judum Camp, District Bijapur, by the Chhatt isgarh Police 5 and SPOs. 14. It has been p ointed out t hat with respect to the aforesaid two incidents, the matter was taken up by the National Human Rights Commission. 15. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that as the Special Forces and the State of Chh attisgarh i tself are involved in the alle ged brutal m assa cre of the tribals, the investigation of all the complaints should be at the instance of none other than the CBI. 16. In the memorandum of the writ petition, the information as regards the relationsh ip between the petitioners nos.2 to 13 re spectively a nd t he deceased has been furnished as under : Petitioner No. Relation with the deceased Village of the deceased Name of deceased Date of Killings 2 Soyam Rama Paternal Uncle Paternal Aunt Niece Niece Nephew Go mpad Gompad Gompad Gompad Gompa d Madvi Baja ar M advi Subi Ku. Madvi Mutti Smt Kartam Kunni Madvi Enka 01.10.09 01.10.09 01.10.09 01.10.09 01.10.09 3 Shri Kunjam Hidma Son Belpocha Kunjam Hurra 01.10.09 4 Shri Madavi Hidma Brother Gachhanpalli Madvi Had ma 17.09.09 5 Shri Madavi Sukd a Son Gachh anpa lli Madvi Deva 17.09.09 6 Shri Madavi Pojja Aunt Gachhanpalli Dudhi Moye 17.09.09 6 7 Shri Soyam Dulla Son Gompad Soyam Subba 01.10.09 8 Smt. Muchaki Sukdi Husband Nulkatong Muchaki Mukka 01.10 .09 9 Madav i Hurre Sister Gachhanpalli Dudhi Moye 17 .09. 09 10 Shri Madavi Raja Father Gachhanpalli Madvi Dora 17.09.09 11 Smt.Madkam Muke Husband Gachhanpalli Madkam Chula 17.09.09 12 Shri Kowasi Kosa Father Gachhanpalli Kowasi Ganga 17.09.09 13 Sodhi Sambo Himself Gompad Petitioner No.13 Himself (in jure d for shooting) 01.10.09 17. The details of the alleged killings on different dates have also been furnished in the memorandum of the writ petition. However, we may not verbatim reproduce the same in our orde r. 18. The details on the Firs t Informatio n Re ports are as under : Sl. No. FIR No., Date, PS, Sections Complainant(s) Accused Gist of allegations Gist of Final Report Present Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 01 PS -Bhejji Dt. - 18.09.2009 Crime No. 04/2 009 Sec. - 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Shri Ravindra Singh, Assistant Commndt. 201 Cobra Bn. Unknown Maoist Cadres and Sangam Members. On information about the presence of Naxal cadres, an anti naxal operation was launched on 16.9.2009 from PS Bhejji towards Gachchanpalli, According to the Investigating Officer, even after a long search, no accused were foun d and on no possibility of find ing the accu sed in near future, the The closure report was accepted on 26.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Dantewa da. 7 Aitrajpad and Entapad by the Security forces. The Maoists made an attempt to kill the Sfs by Gun -fire, failing so, ran away burning their hideouts. closure report was forwarded on 20.10.2010 to the learned CJM, Dantewada having jurisdiction. 02 PS -Chintagufa Dt. - 20. 09.2009 Crim e No . 10/2009 Sec. - 307, 395, 397, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act, 3, 4 Explosive Subs. Act. Shri Premprakash Awadhiya, Sub Inspector PS. - Sukma Unknown Uniformed female and male naxalites abou t 200 - 300 in number. On 16.09.2009, the police party left for Singanmadgu for Anti Naxal operation from police station Chintagufa. On the morning of 17.09.2009, when the party reached the dense forests of Singanmadgu, the camp of Naxalites was seen from wh ere some weapons and other items were re covered. Ahe ad o f that, further, there was an EoF of SFs with Maoists, where a dead body of a Maoists was recovered. There after a while 200 -300 unknown Naxalites again cordoned the police party and attacked the Secu rity forc es, in which Assistant Commanda nt Shriram Manor anjan, Assistant Commandant Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaurasiya, Sub Inspector Shri Sushil Kumar Varma, Head Constable Lalit Kumar, Constable Manoharlal Chandra and Constable Uday Kumar Yadav of CoBRA compan y were ma rtyred and four others – Consta ble Satpal, Cons table Harish Thakur, According to the Investigating Officer, even after a long search, no accused were found and on no possibility of finding the accused in n ear future, the closure report was forwarded on 20.10.2010 to the learned CJM, Dantewada having jurisdiction. The closure report was accepted on 26.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dant ewada. 8 Constable Kamalvoshe and Constable Mohammad Husain Quraishi were of CoBRA company also injured. 03. PS -Bhejji Dt. - 25.11.200 9 Crime No. 05/2 009 Sec. - 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Shri Matram Bariha, Head Constable – 156 PS. - Bhejji Unknown Uniformed Naxalites in large numbers. On the information of increased Maoist activities and pres ence of hideout camps of armed Naxalites in Go mpad village PS Bhejji, three teams of CoBRA 201 Bn. Departed on an anti Naxal operation on 30.09.2009 from injram. On 01.10.2009 this combined party was attacked in form an ambush by Naxalites in Gompa d with objectives of killing the SFs. According t o the Investigating Officer, even after a long search, no accused were found and on no possibility of finding the accused in near future, the closure report was forwarded on 20.10.2010 to the learned CJM, Da ntewada having jurisdiction. The clos ure report w as accepted on 26.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada. 04. PS -Bhejji Dt. - 08.01.2010 Crime No. 01/2010 Sec. - 396, 397 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Shri Soyam Rama Add. - Gompad Unknown Armed Uniformed persons 20 - 25. Absco nding accuse d - 1-Venktesh s/o Unknown 2-Rajesh alias Joga s/o Unknown 3-Vijay alias Ekanna 4-Savitri Bai w/o Unknown 5-Manila w/o Unknown 6-Bhima s/o Unknown 7-Jayram s/o Unknown 8-Samita w/o Chandrana 9-Bhaskar alia s Rajes h s/o Venkteswerlu 10-Kavita d /o Jayram On 08.01.2010 on information of applicant Soyam Rama s/o Soyam Kanna resident Gompad village, a FIR -01/2010 under sec.396, 397 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act was registered in PS Bhejji and taken into investigation agai nst un known Naxalites causing murd er of 7 dece ased named – Madvi Bazar, Madvi Subbi, Madvi Mutti, Kattam Kanni, Madvi Enka, Soyam Subba and Soyam J ogi. Charge sheet filed on 09.09.2010 against 10 named absconding accused u/sec. 396, 397 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Per manent Non -Bailable Warrant has been iss ued against the accused by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Konta. 05. PS -Bhejji Dt. - 21.02.2010 Crime No. 06/2010 Sec. - 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, 25, 27 Shri Maadvi Hadma Add. - Gachchan palli village. 20-25 Unknow n Uniformed pers on carrying gun and banda. On 21.02.2010 on report of applicant Madvi Hadma resident of Gachchanpalli FIR No. -06/2010 under sections – 147, 148, 149, Charge sheet filed on 09.09.2010 against 10 named absconding accused u/sec. 147, 148, 149, Permanent Non -Bailable Warrant has been issued against the accused by the Hon’ ble Judicial 9 Arms Act. 302 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act was registered at PS - Bhejji ag ainst unknown Naxalites for murder of Madvi Hidma, Madvi Joga, Kawasi Ganga, Madkami Chula & Dudhi Muye. 302 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Konta. 06. PS -Bhejji Dt. - 22.02.2010 Crime No. 07/2010 Sec. - 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Shri Komram Lachcha Add. - Chintagufa Unknown number of 20 - 30 p ersons holding gun in uniform. Absconding accuse d - 1-Venktesh s/o Unknown 2-Rajesh alias Joga s/o Unknown 3-Vijay alias Ekanna 4-Savitri Bai w/o Unknown 5-Manila w/o Unknown 6-Bhima s/o Unknown 7-Jayram s/o Unknown 8-Samita w/o Chandrana 9-Bhaskar alia s Raje sh s/o Venkteswerlu 10-Kavi ta d/o Jayra m On 21.02.2010 on report of applicant Madvi Hadma resident of Gachchanpalli FIR No. -06/2010 under sections – 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act was registered at PS - Bhejji against unknown Naxalites for mu rder o f Madvi Hidma, Madvi Joga, Kawasi Ganga , Ma dkami Chula & Dudhi Muye. Charge sheet filed on 09.09.2010 against 10 named absconding accused u/sec. 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Permanent Non -Bailable Warrant has been issued against the acc used b y the Hon’ble Judicial Magi strate First Cla ss (JMFC) Konta. 19. It is the case of the petitioners that after the registration of the FIRs referred to above, no action has been taken by the police. No one came to be arrested. No proper investigation has been undertaken. Not a singl e statement of a ny of the eye - witnesses has been recorded. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ petitioners are here before this Court with the present writ petition seeking relief of investigation of all the F IRs th rough the CBI. The petition ers also see k co mpensation from 10 the Government for the alleged atrocities and massacre. STANCE OF THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH : 20. The State of Chhattisgarh has refuted all the allegations levelled in the memorandum of the writ petition by filing counter -affidavit d uly affirmed through one Shri Vimal Kumar Bais, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter – Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, dated 4 th February 2010. The affidavit minutely deals with all the incidents referred to by the petitioners in the memorandum of the wri t pe tition. We quote the same as under : “5. That the State of Chhattisgarh is facing menace of Naxalism which has been termed as a number one security threat to nation’s integrity and sovereignty by the Hon’ble Prim e Minister of India. The Sta te Police w ith help of paramilitary forces have to tackle the Naxalism and most of the organizations concerning Naxalite movements have also been banned. The State of Chhattisgarh has lost precious life of its personnel whi le de fending the State. In last t w o years, t he s ecurity personnel who are killed by Naxalite in the State of Chhattisgarh would be in the range of 300. In the District of Dantewada alone, sixty -five police personnel have died. The State of Chhattisgarh has also stated in its earlier affid avit that t hese writ petitions are filed by Naxal sympathizers. In fact, the State of Chhattisgarh verily believes that mountains of complaints are filed so as to detract the police personnel from tackling the menace of Nax alism . The police personnel have lost their live s while combating the menace of Naxalite activities. A cavalcade of entire police personnel was ambushed in which even one S.P. died. 11 PARAWISE REPLY : 1. The contents of paragraph No.1 of the writ petiti on are d enied and the attack on t he p olice part y by the Naxalites have been sought to be given the connotation of ‘massacre’. The State of Chhattisgarh have explained the three incidents of 17.09.09 and 01.10.09 with Naxalites in detail in the subsequent paragraph s. The word ‘massacre’ is bei ng used in a cursory manner without revealing the true nature of the incidents on 17.09.2009 and 01.10.2009. RE : INCIDENT OF 17.09.09 [GACHANPALLI] : A team of CoBRA Battalion along with other police officials start ed off f or village Gachanpalli at aro und 07:45 PM o n 16.09.2009, when the police party reached village Gachanpalli and cordoned off the Naxal camp and at around 5.30 AM, the Naxalite opened fire indiscriminately. The police had no option but to retaliate i n self d efence. However even afte r ce asefire, 1 50-200 Naxalites were able to retreat into dense forest. Several arms and ammunitions were recovered from Naxals including Naxal uniforms. At present, it is registered as Crime No.4/09 under Sec. 147, 148, 149 , 307, I .P.C. and 25/27 Arms Act at P .S. Bhejji of Gachanpalli and the investigation is carried on by the CID. RE : INCIDENT OF 17.09.09 VILLAGE - SINGANPALLI : The Police Force headed by Devnath Sonkunwar started off for Singanmadgu and while patrolli ng on 16 .09.2009, they found a Na xal Camp in th e ju ngle of Singanmadgu in the early hours of morning. There was incessant firing from 200 -300 uniformed Naxalites. The police had to opened fire in his self defence. It would be relevant to mention that many police p ersonnel including Kobra AC M anoranjan Sing h, AC Shri Rakesh Chaurasiya, Shri Uday Kumar Yadav were shot dead. Thus precious lives of police personnel were lost in the cross -fire and the firing continued till 08:00 PM on 18.09.2009. Further 12 enforce ment of police personnel were als o so ught. An FIR N o.10/2009 was also registered by P.S. Chintagupha on 20.09.2009. The case was later on shifted to C.I.D. for further investigation in accordance with the recommendations of the NHRC in Nandini Sunder’s cas e. One d ead body of Madavi Deva w as identified w ho died during the cross fire between the Naxalites and the Police. It would be relevant to mention that S.P. Office have received complaints of Madavi Hidma S/o Madavi Kosa, Kawasi Kosa son of late Kawasi Ganga, M adkam Muke wife of Markam Chu la, Madavi Raz a son of Madavi Joga, all belonging to Gachanpalli. The nature of complaints is full of suspicion because all the complaints are in same format and typed in same manner, giving arise to suspicion that cert ain orga nizations sympathetic to Naxa lites or N axal ite - oriented organizations are behind the lodging of such complaints. These complaints are being investigated and veracity of those complaints are doubtful as they are in fixed format and typed in same man ner. In any way, on 10.12.2009 ev en a visit was mad e to Gachanpalli to record the statements of Complainants. However no Complainants were found on 10.12.2009 as the Naxalites persuaded the Complainants to not to cooperate with the police. Now the Addition al S.P. Dantewada has been entrus ted with the j ob o f completing the Investigation in a speedy manner. RE: INCIDENT OF 01.10.2009 [GOMPAD INCIDENT] : A team of security forces consisting of COBRA, local police and SPOs had started off on 30.09.2009 for Go mpad vil lage on the information o f a naxal camp bei ng run near village. When police party was about to reach the village at 06:30 AM on 01.10.2009, it came under heavy fire by Naxalites. The attack was repulsed and place was searched. Police did not find anybody. Afterwards the village wa s al so searche d bu t everyone fled away. The above incident is being investigated by Bhejji PS after registration of FIR No.05/09 under Sec.147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and 25, 27 Arms Act. The case has been transferred to CID for investi gation. 13 The SP office r ecei ved compla ints of Soyam Dula son of late Soyam Dula, Soyam Rama son of late Soyam Kanna, Mrs. Sodi Sambo wife of Sodi Badra, all belonging to Gompad village, all of them desirous of registration of crime against securit y forces for alleged killing of t heir relatives . Th e reason for holding further investigation in the manner is because the complaints are filed after much delay of the alleged crime and secondly, all the complaints are in a fixed format and typed in same m anner gi ving rise to suspicion th at those compl aint s have been engineered by Naxals frontal organizations to derail the investigation. It is also a moot point to note that during the course of investigation, S.D.O.P. Konta and his team had visited the al leged Co mplainants but those Comp lain ants were untr aceable. The State of Chhattisgarh is of the firm belief that those Complainants are only working at the behest of Naxalites and are even under threat of Naxalites. The State of Chhattisgarh thought that since petitioner No. 1 is in active contact with complainants and has even chosen to file writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, it would be advisable that petitioner No. 1 himself comes forth with all the complainants to expedite the investigations. Howe ver this request of police, to cooperate in the investigation, is being a dversely commented upon by the petitioner No. 1 before this Hon’ble Court. Crime No. 05/2009 under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Sec.27/27 of Arms Act has been registered on the report of Security Forces whereas Crime No. 01/2010 under Sec. 396, 397 IPC has been registered in this regard as per the enquiry based on application made by Soyam Rama. The case is now investigated by C.I.D. in accordance with the recommendation of NHRC in Nandini Sunder’s case. 2. The content s of paragraph No.2 of the writ peti tion are vehemently denied. It would be evident that the aforesaid two incidents of 17.09.2009 and one incident of 01.10.2009 have also brought untold misery and deprivation of po lice personnel and several police personnel have lost their lives. The conten ts of paragraph No.2 about alleged massacre is 14 completely misleading and truth of the matter is mat petitioner No.1 after the Naxalite incident has instigated villagers to lodge c omplaints. It is denied that a woman had her breast cut -off and two year old infant was brutally mur dered . Similarl y it is also denied that blind man of 70 years old was executed. 3. & 4. The contents of paragraphs No.3 & 4 of the writ petition are denie d as long as they pertain to the incidents of 17.09.2009 and 01.10.2009. The FIR relating to the inc ident s of 17.09 .200 9 and that of 01.10.2009 have already been transferred to C.I.D. in accordance with the NHRC recommendations in Nandini Sunder’s Case. Th e State of Chhattisgarh would follow the NHRC recommendation regarding the incidents of 17.09.2009 a nd 01 .10.2009 a nd t ransfer of case to the CBI is completely unwarranted. In any case, whether a matter could be transferred to CBI or not is pending before the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court and the judgement is still awai ted. 5. In response to the c ontents of par agraph No.5 of the writ petition, it is stated that writ petitions concerning incidents dated 18.03.2008 at District Bijapur and 08.01.20 09 at District Dantewada are already pending before the Hon’ble High Court a s Writ Petition Nos.211/ 2008 & 363/2009 res pectively. The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh is in seisen of the matter and the deponent has already traversed the pleadings before the Chhattisgarh High Court. 6. The contents of paragraph No.6 of the writ petition are denied for want of knowled ge. 7. In response to the contents of paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that incident of 17.01.2009 is already explained in the preceding paragraphs and therefore it requires no further reply. The facts have been complete ly di storted an d ar e stated in false manner. It has already been stated that Madavi Deva was the uniformed Naxalite whose body found from the site while the incident on 17.09.09 at Singampali. As regards case of burning in hot oil o f Muchaki Deva, though n o com plaint has bee n made to police. It is only found in a press release dated 30.10.2009 of the fact finding team of PUCL 15 (Chhattisgarh), PUDR (Delhi, Vanv asi Chetna Ashram (Dantewada), Human Rights Law Network (Chhatisgarh), Actio n Aid (Orissa), Manna Ad hikar (Malkangi ri) and Zilla Adhivasi Ekta Sangh (Malkangiri), that Muchaki Deva has been taken to Bhadrachalam by members of the fact finding team. However this entire allegation of burning in hot oil is turned out to be a totally concocted story as evide nt from the art icle published in Hindustan Times in which doctors of Bhadrachalam have denied to have seen such a burn case at all. As far as the allegation of certain persons being ‘tied’ and paraded Is concerned, it is maintained that when security force s rea ched to th e vi llage Gachanpalli, after repulsing the attack, no one was found and everybody had fled to the jungle. It is the Naxalites who are unleash ing terror and the blame is put on the State. It is reiterated that the enti re efforts seems to eulo gize the Naxali te m ovement and to bring every effort to curtail Naxalism in poor light. The incident of 01.10.2009 has been explained in detail in the prec eding paragraphs and the facts stated in the paragraph under Reply are total ly distorted and far fro m tru th. As re gard s allegation of 8 arrested and two missing, it could be said that an FIR No.27/2009 dated 02.10.2009, P.S. Konta, has been registered whi ch is relatable to attack by Naxalites on security forces in the jungle of N ulkatong on 01.10.2009. In ab ove incide nt, two dead bodies were recovered and eight people had been arrested. The two dead bodies were brought to P.S. Konta and inquest by Executiv e Magistrate and post -mortem report was made as per provisions of law. The alleged killings at Chi ntagu fa (the ot her one than that of Siganpalli) came to the knowledge to the State of Chhattisgarh only after the receipt of this writ petition and same is being investigated upon. The recognition of Panda Soma and Ganga of Asargu da village are completel y mis placed. It is reiterated that no person by the name of Ganga of Asarguda village have been SPO in police record of 16 Dantewada. Panda Soma was killed in blast by Naxalites on 06.05.2009 and there is also a death certificate to th at effect. Thus the pres ence of Panda Soma on 01.10.2009 is completely falsified. The allegations of looting, burning of houses, harassment & torture by the security forces are als o denied vehemently. 8. The contents of paragraph No.8 of the writ petitio n are denied. There have been no extra judi cial killings and in fact several police personnel have also lost their lives. The Petitioners No.2 to 13 may not like go to the police s tation but they can certainly go to Magistrate for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the C ode o f Criminal Pro cedure. The judicial system even at the grass -root level is independent and would be in position to monitor the investigation in an effec tive manner. 9. & Ors. In response to the contents of paragraphs No.9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of t he writ petition, it is submitted that the complaint are under investigation and the stories are more in the nature of ‘make -believe’. Th e true incident has already been narrated in the preceding paragraph. The Co mplainants have not been foun d whenever the places of their residence is visited by the investigating authorities. The S.P., Dantewada, made a request to the petitioner No.1 to fur nish the details of Complainants or produce the Complainants themselves so t hat further investigatio n cou ld take pl ace. However petitioner No.1 has taken umbrage, which would be evident from the pleadings before this Hon’ble Court. In fact, the police is n ot getting any assistance from the petitioner No.1 who claims to be represen tatives of petitioners N o.2 t o 13. 10 . In response to the complaint filed by Kunjan Hidma as mentioned in the contents of paragraph No.10 of the writ petition, an enquiry was ins tituted and enquiry report has been submitted by S.D.O.P. Konta. It has been stated that nobody was found by the po lice personnel when they visited village Belpocha on 07.12.2009. It is relevant to mention that village Belpocha is situated only 14 kms from P.S. Konta but the Complainant did not report the matter 17 at P.S. Konta. It is strange that killin g of h is son Kun jam Hurra was not reported to the police, even though the village Dhondhara is situated nearby. The village men of Dhondhara Sarpanch Markam Krishana, former Sarpanch Markam Sitaram, Punam Naraiya were interrogated ab out the alleged inciden t. The y refused to h ave any knowledge about the incident. Thus no evidence was found and the complaint was found to be false after discreet enquiry. 16. In response to the contents of paragraph No.16 of the writ petition, it is sub mitted that an enquiry report was submi tted by S.D.O.P., Konta in which it is stated that S.D.O.P. Konta tried to contact the Complainant at village Nulkatong on 09.11.2009 but no one was found in the village. It is relevant to mention that the two dead bo dies of unknown naxals were b rought to P.S. Konta and an inquest was also prepared by the Executive Magistrate. Nobody had turned up for identification of dead bodies for almost th ree days. An FIR No.27/2009 under Sec.147, 148, 149, 307 IPC read with Sec.2 5 & 27 of Arms Act have been registered at P.S. Konta. Now the Addl. S.P. Dantewada has been given charge to hold the enquiry in speedy manner. 22. The contents of paragraph No.2 2 of the writ petition are denied. It is respectfully submitted that the vil lagers are living in st ate of fear from Nax alites and not from the State. 23. The contents of paragraph No.23 of the writ petition are vehementiy denied. The State of Chhattisgar h believes that story of hot boil is not seriously believed even by the peti tioner No.1 and is a fiction. 24. The cont ents of paragraph No.24 of the writ petition are denied. Certain matters are subjudice before Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilas pur while in others the Complainants have not come forward and did not coope rate in the investigati on. Th e State of Chh attisgarh is committed to register an FIR and even hold investigation provided the 18 Complainants cooperate in the investigation process. In any case at the F.I.R.s concerning incidents of 17.09.09 and 01.10.09 have been duly registered a nd inv estigation s ar e going on. 25. to 27. The contents of paragraphs No.25 & 26 of the writ petition are denied and this subject matter is already part of the writ petition filed before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. 28.1 The contents of paragra ph No. 28.1 of th e wr it petition are denied and incidents of 17.01.2009 and 01.10.2009 have already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. 28.2 & 28.3 The contents of paragraph No.28.2 of the writ petition are vehemently denied . The FIRs have been r egiste red and an inv estigation has been transferred to the C.I.D. in accordance with the recommendations of the NHRC in Nandani Sunder’s case. It is also set tled proposition of law that there may not be more than one FIR regarding the same incident and onc e an F IR is regi ster ed, then the subsequent complaints about the same incident would be termed as statements under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the second FIR is registered about the same incident, it would have little effect on the o verall investiga tion of the case. The State of Chhattisgarh is cognizant of the complaints and has even stated to the petitioner No.1 herein to come forward with the Complainants so that there statements could be recorded and investig ation is duly complete d. The State of Chha ttisgarh reiterates that if the Complainants or the Petitioners come forward then the State would readily record their statements and eve n register separate FIRs apart from the FIRs registered by the Police so far. 28.4 The contents of pa ragraph No .28. 4 of the writ petition are denied because the investigation is done in the proper manner and there is no apparent irregularity or omissio n in the investigation which would warrant investigation by the CBI. In any cas e, whether an invest igatio n could be mad e by CBI at the direction of the Hon’ble Court is pending consideration before the Constitution Bench. 19 28.5 The contents of paragrap h No.28.5 of the writ petition are vehemently denied. The police has duly register ed the FIRs and i nvestig ation is c ondu cted in accordance with the NHRC recommendations in Nandini Sunder’s case. It is the Naxals who have attacked the posse of policemen and this allegation of ‘massacre’ is invoked for misleading this Hon’ble Court. 28. 6 The contents of para graph No.2 8.6 of the writ petition are denied. The Complainants are in touch with the petitioner No.1 and the State of Chhattisgarh reiterates that if the Complainants come forward then their statements shall be recorded and investi gation shall be d one acc ordingly. H owe ver the Complainants have played truant. Normally one FIR is registered for one incident and subsequent complaints are recorded as state ments under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and investigation takes plac e accordingly. Ev en if a formal se para te FIR is registered, the Complainants and some of the Petitioners shall have to come forward to cooperate with the investigation. 28. 7 The contents of paragraph No.28.7 of the writ petition are vague and hence denie d. 28.8 The content s of parag raph No.28.8 of the writ petition are denied. It is respectfully submitted that word ‘massacre’ is misnomer. The State has not violated Arti cles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 21. We take notice of the fact that an affidavit -in -rej oinder has bee n filed, duly affirmed by the petitioner no.1, to the aforesaid reply filed by the State of Chhattisgarh. In the rejoinder, the petition er no.1 has once again reiterated what has been stated in the writ petition. 20 CoBRA 2 01 BATTALION : 22. An affidav it-in-reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, duly affirmed by one Shri Dilip Kumar Kotia (201 CoBRA Bn. - SAF). Few rel evant averments made in the reply are as under : “7(1) Regarding Gachanpalli murders: No civilia n was kil led or inj ured by the CoBRA/SAF troops. The killing of 02 years old child and 01 blind man of 70 years are denied. However, it is the known fact that naxalites often use civilians as human shield. It is further submitted that the CoBRA troops fire d on prov ocation of nax alites in self defence and to defend themselves at Gachanpalli on 17/09/09 when they were ambushed by the naxalites. Hence, the probabil ity of naxalities themselves indulging in these acts of terrorizing the locals to coer ce them to jo in thei r naxal mo veme nt can not be ruled out. (2) Regarding the case of Madvi Deva: The troops of CoBRA 201 Bn did not carry out operation in village Singh anaplli on 17/09/09. It is submitted that one of the naxalites who was wearing a black naxal unif or m and c arrying a m uzz le loaded gun was killed in an encounter with the CoBRA/SAF Bn at the time of unearthing of naxalite gun factory at Singhanmadugu. His d ead body was later on brought to PS Chintagufa Distt. Dantewada for post mortem and fu rther legal action. FIR No. 10 /200 9 dated 20/9/2009 u/s 307, 395, 397 of IPC, Sections 25/27 Arms Act and Sections 3,4 of Explosives Act was also lodged with PS Chintaguf a (Dantewada) about the incident. It is to mention here that if the said person was Ma davi Deva of Singhan palli vill age then he was definitely a naxalite and not an innocent civilian. It is further mentioned here that during the course of unearthing the Ar m s factory of naxalites and returning back our troops were ambushed by the naxalites n ear village Singhanm adugu wher e 06 brave commandos of CoBRA/SAF have lost their precious lives and body of 21 those martyrs recovered only on 19/09/09 morning. The troops of CoBRA/SAF had no option except to retaliate which lasted for about one and a half hou r. (3) Reg ar ding Bu rnt in hot oil : The troops of CoBRA Bn./CRPF had neither conducted any operation at village Ondherpara nor committed any act as alleged. Hence, the al legation against this Force is totally false and frivolous. (4) Regarding Tying and p arading: Th e allegat ion agains t th e Force personnel is totally false as no person was apprehended or arrested during the operation. (5) Regarding Force displacement and terror: There are frequent reports of murder and torture of innocent people by naxalit e cadres to terroriz e the mass es i n the name Maoist ideology and it has also been informed by intelligence sources that naxalites are seen in security force uniforms in t his region. Hence, the probability of naxalites themselves having indulged in these ac ts of terro rizing th e tribals to coerce to support and join their naxal movement cannot be ruled out. It seems to be parts of naxals psychological war fare against the se curity forces with intention to stall and jeopardize the ongoing operations against th em in their strong h old areas. (6 ) Regarding Gompada ‘encounter’ dated 1/10/09: On the basis of intelligence received from sources regarding presence of naxalites in the village of Gompad under the jurisdiction of PS Bheji on dated 30/09/09 special joint operation w as planne d involvin g pa rty of SAF 201 Bn., Civil Police and SPOs. The party was given task to carry out cordon and search at Gompad Village. The troops were ca rrying man pack (bag containing various items of troops) and all the other logistic an d administr at ive sup port items suf ficient for 03 days duration. Accordingly, CoBRA/SAF troops comprising AC -02, SOs -04, Other Ranks -66, HC/RO -02 under the command of Shri Ravindra Singh Shekhawat, Asstt. Comdt. alongwith one ASI of civil police, 08 constab le of civil police a nd 21 SPOs lef t from the base camp of PS Bheji on 22 30/09/09. When CoBRA/SAF troops were about 01 Km short of village Gompad at about 0630 hrs on 01/10/ 09 naxalites ambushed the troops and opened heavy fire. CoBRA/SAF troops had no other option and we re forc ed to reta liat e the fire which lasted for about 20 minutes and naxalites fled away from the ambush site. When the naxalites were fleeing they were see n carrying their injured colleagues. After the naxalites fled away, the area was thoro ughly searc he d by ou r troops a nd H and grenade -02, Tiffin bomb -01, Solar panel -01, fired case of 7.62 x 51 mm carts -03, Detonator -02, Cap -01 were recovered from the ambush site which were left by naxalites in hurry while fleeing the site. Troops moved furth er and sear ch ed vill age Gompad whe re no villager was found. Then our troops returned back. However it is submitted that due to strong action against the naxalites by the CoBRA/SAF Bn in the joint operation since 16/09/09 onward in the interior naxal affect ed and domi na nt vill ages destr oyin g and unearthing the Arms factory of the naxalites, the naxalites have lost the ground and baffled. And this strong action of the CoBRA/ SAF Bn was highly appreciated and published in the local newspapers. Hence, the petiti oners in co nn ivance with the n axal ites have falsely alleged against the local police and SAF 201 to stall the operations against naxalities with well thought out nefariou s designs. (7) Regarding more killings: Neither our Force carried out any operations at Chintag uf a on 01 /10/2009 n or killed or injured any innocent civilians. The allegation is false. Hence, allegation is vehemently denied. (8) Regarding travails of a 2 years old: No civilian or child was bodily harmed /tortured by Force personnel during the operat io ns. The allegation aga inst CoBRA/SAF Force is totally false and fabricated. Hence, vehemently denied. (9) Regarding 8 arrested and 2 missing: Force of this 201 CoBRA/SAF Unit was neither deployed for operational duty in Mukundtong and Junitong villages no r they h ave commit ted any such act mentioned in allegation. Hence, vehemently denied. 23 (10) Regarding looting and burning of property and houses: Force pers onnel of 201 CoBRA(SAF) Bn. neither looted nor stolen any property/money from any of th e houses d ur ing oper ation. Rat her the naxalites burnt down their own training infrastructure and hide outs when Force personnel carried out operations at their location. The allegations against Force personnel are fabricated and totally false as they were carrying s uf ficient ration and oth er items required for their personal use during the operations. (11) Regarding harassment and torture: No civilian was either harassed or tortured during the operation by 201 CoBRA(SAF) Bn. as alleged. Hence, this allegat ion agains t the Forc e personne l is false and denied. (12) Regarding presence of SPOs and Salwa Judum leader with security forces: Personnel of 201 CoBRA (SAF) did not conduct operation in Mukudtong village and hence no question of Salwa Judum leader acco mpanying t he m. Howev er, CoBRA pers onnel carried out operation in Gomapada village on 1/10/09 alongwith civil police and SPOs. (13) Regarding forced displacement and te rror: No houses were damaged/ burnt by the Force personnel and no forcible displacement of villag er s carrie d out. Hen ce, this allegation against Force personnel is totally false and denied. 8. In reply to para -8, it is submitted that no civilian was kille d or tortured by the SAF 201 personnel and all the allegations against this Force are f alse and fab ricated. It is the dut y of the Paramilitary Force to step in aid of the people and not to harass them or to commit any activity derogatory to the human right s. In fact, the Force is operating at the risk of life of their personnel engaged in pr otecting l ife and pr operty of the citizens. 9. In reply to para 9, it is submitted that the allegation is false, hence denied. In fact the troops were ambushed near thi s village Gompad and after 24 an exchange of fire the troops seized Hand Grenade - 02 Nos, T iffin Bomb -01,Booby trap -1 Sol ar P anel -01, fired cases of 7.62x51 mm cart -03, detonator -02, Cap - 01. 10. In reply to para 10, it is submitted that the troops of 201 CoBR A (SAF) Bn. did not carry out any operation at Dhodhra. The allegations are totally fal se, basele ss , hence denied. 11. In reply to para 11, it is submitted that no civilian was either caught or killed by this Unit personnel neither any money was ever loot ed. However, on 17/09/2009 our troops were ambushed by the naxalites in Gachanpalli and the troop s retaliat ed in self def ence. This allegation against 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. is false and baseless and hence denied. 12. In reply to para 12, it is submitted tha t the allegation is false as no such act was committed by 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. and hence denied. 13 . In rep ly to para 13, it is submitted that the allegations are totally false as no such act was committed by 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. and hence denied. 14. In reply to para 14, it is submitted that the allegation is totally false as no such acts were commi tted by 20 1 CoBRA (S AF) Bn. No person was beaten, stabbed or killed by the Force personnel. No property was looted or burnt. However, the vagueness or truthful ness of the allegations leveled in the petition is borne out by the fact that the name and number of the pe titioner g iven in the para does not tally with the list of petitioners in the cause title of the Writ Petition. 15. In reply to para 15, it is subm itted that the allegation is totally false as no such act was committed by 201 CoBRA (S AF) Bn. Ho we ver, the name and numb er of the petitioner given in the para does not tally with the list of petitioners in the writ petition. 16. In reply to para 16, it is submitted that the Force of 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. did not carry out any 25 operation in v illage Nul ka tong on 1/10/09. H ence , the allegation against this Unit is totally incorrect and baseless. However, the name and number of the petitioner given in the para does not tally with the list of petitioners in the writ petition. 17. In reply to par a 17, it i s submitte d that 201 CoB RA (SAF) Bn. personnel did not kill villagers or burnt their houses. However, on 17/9/09 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. personnel carried out oper ation in village Gachanpalli during which our personnel were ambushed by heavily armed naxalites an d the pe rsonnel re tali ated back in self defence. 18. In reply to para 18, it is submitted that 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. personnel did not kill villagers nor bur nt their houses. However, on 17/9/09 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. personnel carried out operatio n in villa ge Gachanp alli durin g wh ich our personnel were ambushed by heavily armed naxalites and the personnel retaliated back in self defence. 19. In reply to para 19 , it is submitted that 201 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. personnel did not kill villagers or burnt th eir houses . However, on 17/9/0 9 20 1 CoBRA (SAF) Bn. personnel carried out operation in village Gachanpalli during which our personnel were ambushed by heavily armed naxa lites and the personnel retaliated back in self defence. 20. In reply to para 20, it i s submitte d that the allegatio n is false and denied. Although 201 CoBRA (SAF) had carried out operation in village Gompada on 1/10/09 but no such act was committed by SA F personnel. 21. In reply to para 21, it is submitted that one of the naxalites who w as wearing a black n axal unifo rm and carrying a muzzle loading gun was killed in encounter with this Unit personnel at the time of unearthing of naxalites gun factory at Singhanmadugu on 17/09/09. His dead body was later on brought to PS Chintagufa and han ded over t o Police S tation for pos t mortem and further action. A Copy of the photograph of the said militant is placed 26 at Annexure R 12. In this connection FIR No.10/200 9 dated 20/9/2009 was also lodged with PS Chintagufa (Dantewada). It is also mentioned here that wh ile retu rning back aft er unearthing the arms factory of naxalities, our troops were ambushed by naxalites in which six commandos of this unit lost their prec ious lives. 22. In reply to para 22, it is submitted that naxalite cadres have been of ten wearin g security force uni form to terrorize the masses to defame the security forces and demoralize them and as such the allegation is false and denied. 23. In repl y to para 23, it is submitted that 201 CoBRA (SAF) troops did not carry out any operati on in vill ag e Onderp ara. Hence , th e allegation is denied. 24. No comments are offered in reply to para 24. 25. In reply to para 25, it is submitted that CRPF is not in volved in any incident as alleged and hence denied. 26. In reply to para 26, it is sub mitted tha t this poi nt does no t pe rtain to CRPF/ SAF Unit. Hence, the allegation is denied. 27. In reply to para 27, it is submitted that this point does not pertain to this CRPF/ SAF Unit. Hence, the allegation is denied. REPLY ON GROUNDS : 28. 28.1: In reply to para 28 .1, it is subm itted that the grounds made by the petitioners are false and fabricated because none of the act mentioned in the Writ Petition have bee n committed by the troops of this SAF/CRPF unit. However, being a specialized armed for ce of the un ion, the troops ar e de ployed to enforce the law of the land and to protect the life and property to common people. There are frequent reports of civilian kil lings and torture of innocent by naxalite cadres wearing security forces’ uniforms to t errorize the masses in the nam e of maoist ideology and they 27 might have indulged in such acts to defame the security forces and demoralize them with the intention to stal l and derail operations in their strong hold areas. 28.2: No comments are offered in r eply to pa ra 28.2. 28.3 to 2 8.9: No comments are offered in reply to para 28.3 to 28.9 PRAYER : a) That the petitioner’s request for CBI enquiry appears to be intend ed to delay the criminal investigation already being conducted by the State police agai nst the na xa lites. H ence, the pray er deserves not to be entertained. b) It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that the consideration and/or granting the petitio ners’ prayer for award of compensation to such naxalite who was in naxalite uniform as well as ha vi ng muzzl e loaded g un a s killed by the 201 CoBRA/SAF Bn in village Singhanmadugu is totally misplaced and it is bonafide believed that Govt. funds i.e. the ta x payers’ hard earned money does not deserve to be spent for awarding compensation to t hose who h av e lost l ives while bei ng part of insurgent naxal acts which will in turn demoralize the Forces fighting naxalites whose duty is to protect the life and prope rty of the people and to safeguard integrity and security of the country. Hence, this p rayer of t he petitio ners also dese rves to be rejected. Hence, Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost on the petitioners for having urged and alleged base less, false and unsustainable allegations.” 23. We also take notice of one further aff idavit -in -re ply file d on behal f of the respondent no.3, duly affirmed by Shri Barun Kumar Sahu, Director (Personnel), Police -II Division, Ministry of Home Affairs. We qu ote the averments made therein as under : 28 “2. I say that I have read and understood th e contents mentioned in the aff idav it dated 22.04.2010 filed by the Petitioner and that the petitioner has filed the affidavit under reply to prove the existence of No. 9 Smt.Madavi Hurre in the Writ Petition as she could not be produced before the Hon’ble Court by th e petition er. It is stat ed that the petitioner has filed several copies of the pages of the Tehalka magazine on the basis of which he is trying to prove the existence of the petitioner in question. The magazine or newspaper are not the primary e vidence or authentic proof of a ny m aterial or fact and have no exclusive evidentiary value. Hence, the production of copies of the pages of Tehalka magazine are inadmis sible and same are opposed. Also that the petitioner no.1 has been trying since the very beginning to blame t he securit y Fo rces, fighting with naxalities, with the imaginary charge of atrocities/ arsons which they have miserably failed in proving and also trying to unnecessary lengthen the litigation by putting up various miscellaneous applic ations with out any re levance to the case. The manner in which false allegations have been made from time to time against the security forces is a matter of record. The w hole attempt is to demoralize the security forces by tarnishing their image and shaking their conf idence. It is also p erti nent to mention here that the authenticity of Tehalka magazine, which the petitioner is relying upon cannot believed as the dates men tioned in magazine are not correct. PARAWISE REPLY : 1. The contents of para 1 need no comments. 2 The repl y to the c onte nts of para 2 it is stated that the name of Madavi Hurre is only mentioned in the list of petitioners and there is no mention in the w rit petition that she has suffered any loss or injury at the hands of security forces. The Writ pe tition doe s not make a m ention that she is the wife of Madvi Deva. The petitioner has tried to prove her existence on the basis of her thumb impression on th e vakalatnama but 29 the document is not produced as Annexure. Hence, the fact cannot be a dmitted as p roved. The petitione r ha s failed to produce the witness in the court. If she is available, there should not be any objection in her production before the Hon ’ble court. The fact of visit of the Madavi Hurre to Delhi on 20.10.2009 is not proved at all. On t he other h and it is also humbly stated that all the 10 petitioners produced have not blamed the CRPF/ COBRA (SAF) of any of the killing/ atrocities as allege d by the petitioner no.1 in the writ petition. 3. In reply to the contents of para 3 to 8 , I say that the Tehalka Ma gazi ne (7th November, 2009 at P/37) have published the photograph of a lady with a child in her lap. The magazine describes her to be res ident of village Singanmadgu whereas she has been shown as resident of village : Gancha palli now th e petition er has als o ad ded that she is resident of Village Singanpalli /Singanmadgu. The contradiction in name of villages is apparent and hence unbelievable . The magazine has stated in this report that the incident had taken place on October 17, which is wrong an d magazine hav e published it without verifying the facts which clearly shows that the main intention of the petitioner is to malign the image of the security Forces, CRPF/COBRA (SAF) engaged in anti -naxal operations, it is also pertin ent to mention here th at the Pet itio ner has only mentioned names of persons who according to him met the lady and interviewed her but still could not establish her signing the writ petition and hence cannot be relied upon. 4. In reply to the contents of p ara 9, I say t hat in almost all the applications/affidavits, the petitioner no.1 is seen to be initiating or at times one Shri Pushkar Raj of PUCL is seen to be asking for impleadment on various reasons the same which shows that the other petitioners i.e. 2 to 13 have b een unne cessarily incl uded on the behest where as 10 petitioners who were produced before the Hon’ble Court have not blamed the CRPF/COBRA (SAF) personnel fo r any of the atrocities committed as alleged in the writ petition. A copy of the list of applicatio ns made by petitio ner no.l & Shri Pushkar Raj is enclosed herewith as Annexure -A/1. 30 It is also pertinent to mention here that on 06.04.2010, in an incident, the naxalites have killed 75 CRPF personnel. The death of 75 CRPF personnel and one civil police p ersonnel on 6/4/20 10 c learly indicates the menace of naxalism in State of Chattisgarh and the troops are engaged to fight naxalism to protect the integrity a nd in fact the very existence of the democratic system. Now the petitioner with his i nterviews to v arious e lectronic m edi a channels like NDTV India through its various discussion forunis has tried to malign the image of the CRPF/COBRA (SAF) by blaming them whereas the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence, the petitio ner himself ha d taken up the rol e of Judge in this matter, which clearly shows the intentions of the petitioner no. 1 in the matter.” 24. We may now look into the affidav it duly affirmed by Shri Rajesh Kukreja, Additional Superintendent of Police, Headqua rter Dantewada , Chhatt isgarh. In thi s affidavit, the information as regards the compensation paid to the members of the family of the deceased has been furnished. We quote the same as under : “3. It is submitted that in the affidavit dated 23.04.2010 the petitioner has stated t hat Madvi H urr e is a resident of Singanpalli /Singanmadgu which is different from the name of the village (Gacchanpalli) mentioned in the Writ Petitio n. In the same affidavit the petitioner has mentioned Late Madvi Deva was the husb and of petitioner no.9. This is d iffe rent from the name of husband mentioned in the Writ Petition which is Madvi Hurra. 4. It is submitted that on further investigation reg arding petitioner no. 9 has revealed that there is no such person by the name of M advi Hurre in vil lage Singanpalli / Si nganmadgu. This is also confirmed by 31 the Tehsildar, Konta Sub Division. A copy of report and certificate issued by the Tehsildar Konta, Sarpanch and Secretary of Burkalanka Gram Panchayat and Secretary Gram Panchayat Pe ntapar is collect ively enclosed a nd a s marked as Annexure R - 1. There is no such person as per the voter's list of village Gacchanpalli and Singanmadgu. A copy of voters list of Village Ganchapalli and Singanmadgu are collectively enclosed herewith and the same is marked as Annex ure R -2. 5. It is further submitted that further investigation and enquiries have revealed that the petitioner No.6 is Madvi Pojja is still in Andhra Pradesh. 6. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ - has been sanctioned to b e paid to the pet itione r no.2 Soy am R ama vide Collector Dantewada order no. 752 dated 4.03.2010 as compensation for death of four members of his family. 7. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - has been sanctioned to be paid to the petitioner no. 4 Madvi Hidma son of Mad vi Podiya vide Collector Dantewada order no. 756 dated 4.03.2010 as compensation for death of his cousin brother of his family. 8. It is submitted th at in the 164 statement recorded on 11.03.2010, the petitioner no. 5 (Madvi Sukda) has stated that his so n was kill ed t hree years ago whereas in the complaint filed with the writ petition he has stated that his son was killed on 17.09.2009. Since the two s tatements are different hence further investigation is being conducted to arrive a t the truth. For the re asons ment ione d above no compensation has been paid to petitioner no. 5. 9. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. One lakh has been sanctioned to be paid to the family member (Dudhi Bhima) of petitioner no. 6 vide Collector Dantewada or der no. 756 date d 4.03. 2010 towar ds compensation for death of his cousin brother of his family. 32 10. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.Two lakh has been sanctioned to be pai d to the petitioner no. 7 vide Collector Dantewada order no. 752 dated 4.03.2010 as compensation fo r death of two me m ber s of his family. 11. It is submitted that compensation has not been paid to petitioner no. 3 & 8 since investigation is being carried o ut. 12. It Is submitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - has been sanctioned to be pai d to the Petitio ner no. 10 (Madav i Ra ja) vide Collector — Dantewada Order No.756 dated 04.03.2010. 13. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - has been sanctioned to b e paid to the Petitioner No.11 - Smt. Madkam Muke vide Collector - Dantewada Order No.756 dated 04. 03.2010 . 14. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - has been sanctioned to be paid to the Petitioner No.12 — Shri Kowasi Kosa vide Collector - Dantewa da Order No.756 dated 04.03.2010. 15. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.10,000/ - has been sanction ed to t he Petitio ner No.13 - Smt. Sodi Sambo for sustaining injury vide Collector - Dantewada Order No.889 dated 11.03.2010 . 16. It is respectfully submit ted that further investigation in the cases registered are being carried out by the State CID.” SU MMATIO N OF THE S TANC E OF THE RESPONDENTS : 25. Thus, if we have to sum up the stance of the respondents, then the same is that the entire case put up by the w rit petitioners portraying the incidents of 17 th September 2009 and 33 1st October 2009 respectively as a b rutal mas sacr e by the members of the different Police and Paramilitary Forces is palpably false. All the averments made in the memorandum of the writ petition are ex facie false and fabricated. An attempt has been made to mislead th is Court. False al legati ons have been levelled on the police and the paramilitary forces with a mala fide intention to change the narrative of the incidents, i.e. to portray the dreaded Left Wing Extremists (Naxals), who were waging an armed rebellion again st the security f orces o f the cou ntry and threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the country, as innocent tribal victims being massacred by the security forces. 26. It is the case of the respondents that this false narrative of the massacre of innoc ent tribals by the securi ty forces was created to somehow achieve immediate cessation of the advancement of the security forces against the concerned armed Left Wing Extremist s. The purpose and motive of the present writ petitioners was also to derail the ongoing efforts of the se curity fo rces in neutralizing the Left Wing Extremism movement and the armed Left Wing Extremists; to deprive the dignity and credibility of the secur ity forces; to lower the morale of the security agencies by portraying them as de mons and national villain s, i.e. s laye rs of innocent tribal people; and to foist false cases on them so that in future such false cases would act as a 34 deterrent. In short, the case of the respondent is that the entire writ petition is nothing but a fraud p layed upon with th e Court . 27. All the First Information Reports were thoroughly investigated and charge sheets have been filed in the concerned courts for different offences under the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for shor t, “the IPC ”) and other enactments. All the accused pers ons nam ed in the charge sheets have been show n as absconding. It is not that the investigation has not been carried out. The filing of the charge sheets is prima facie material to put the accused persons named therein on trial. The charge sheets filed agai nst the ac cused persons named therein bear el oque nt testimony to the fact that the allegations levelled against the police and paramilitary forces are absolu tely false and reckless. 28. The petitioners have miserably failed to point out as to in what manne r the i nv estigation carried out could be said to be perfunctory. Without even studying the charge sheets how can it be asserted on their part that nothing ha s been done by the investigating agencies. Even for the purpose of making out a case for further in vestiga tion , the infirmities in the charge she ets m ust be pointed out to the satisfaction of the Court. Nothing of that sort has been pointed out to this Cou rt. 35 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS : 29. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel app earing for the petitioners, vehementl y su bmitted that the alleged brutal incidents of killing of the tribals should be investigated through the CBI. He would submit that the family members of the petitioners were killed in cold -blood by the Chha ttisgarh Po lice, Special Police Officers (SPOs) appo inted by the Chhattisgarh Government in collusion with the activists of the Salwa Judum (group of vigilante s sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government ) and the Central Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF an d th e CoBRA Battalion, in two separate at tack s dated 17 th September 2009 and 1 st October 2009 respectively. 30. Mr. Gonsalves would submit that the Sta te of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh Police have not done anything so far despite the fact tha t the ey e-wi tnesses have identified the accused p erso ns in some of the cases. He would submit that not a single eye -witness has been called so far for the purp ose of recording of his statement. The learned senior counsel would submit that the only hope is the CBI. 36 31 . In such circumstances referred to ab ove, Mr . Gonsalves prays that this Court may issue a mandamus directing the CBI to carry out the investigatio n of all the First Information Reports referred to above. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS : 32. Mr . Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicito r Ge neral appearing for the Union of India , on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He would submit that the petition deserves to be rejected not only with exemplary costs, but each of the petitioners should be held guilty of levelling fals e charges of offence and of giving false and fabricated evidence before this Court with an intentio n to procure conviction for a capital offence or for life imprisonment against the personnel o f se curi ty forces with a view to screen off the actual offe nder s of the Left Wing (Naxal) terrorism. 33. Mr. Mehta would submit that if such palpably false and mo tivated writ petition at the instance of an NGO is entertained by this Court, then the same ma y le ad t o disastrous res ults as the very morale of the diff eren t police and paramilitary forces fighting against the Naxals would be shaken. 34. Mr. Mehta, in th e course of his submissions, highlighted a very shocking picture as to how the Naxalites, over a p erio d of 37 time, have b rutally killed the members of the poli ce forces. According to Mr. Mehta, the mastermind behind this writ petition is the petitioner no.1 claiming to run an NGO for the welfare and interest of the tribals. According to Mr. Mehta, th e pe titi oners nos.2 to 13 a re absolutely rustic and illiter ate tribals. It is at the instigation of the petitioner no.1 that they might have thought fit to join a s the petitioners. 35. Mr. Mehta would submit that this petition is of the year 2009. Almost 1 3 ye ars have passed by till this date. However, it is very shoc king to know that none of the petitioners have any idea about the investigation which has already b een carried out by the police with respect to each of the FIRs. 36. Mr. Mehta invited the atte ntio n of this Court to one order passed by a Coordinate Ben ch d ated 15 th February 2010. The same reads thus : “O R D E R The Chief Secretary, in terms of our di rections, has filed his Report, which shall form part of the record and to be put in a sealed cove r. On 8.2.2010, after hearing the parties, we have is sued the following directions : “Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit s that after the adjournment of this Writ Petition on 5th February, 2010 Petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 w ere illegally taken int o custody or 38 caused their disapp eara nce by the respondent - police. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Chhatisgarh seriously disp utes the correctness of the assertion made by the learned senior counsel about the police bein g re spon sible for causing t he disappearance of Petitioner N os. 2 to 13. We at this stage do not propose to express any opinion whatsoever on this issue relating to the alleged disappearance of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 13. Be that as it may, we would li ke t o ex amine the Petitione r Nos. 2 to 13 and hear their ve rsio n as to what transpired in the matter after we have heard and adjourned the hearing of this petitio n on 5th February, 2010 or prior thereto. The interest of justice requires the production of Pet itio ner Nos. 2 to 13 in this Court. We, accordingly, di rect Respondent No.1 to produce the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 in this Court on 15th February, 2010 for th e purpose of further hearing of this petition. The Chief Secretary, State of Chhatisgarh is dire cted to ensure the comp liance of this Order and submit his own report on or before 15th February, 2010.” Pursuant to our directions the first respondent pro duced six out of 13 petitioners, namely, Shri Soyam Rama, Shri Kunjam Hidma, Shri Madavi Hidma , Sh ri Soyam Dulla, Smt. Mu chki Sukri and Smt. Sodhi Sambo (Pet itioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 13 respectively). We are informed that the six petitioners who are p roduced before us today speak only ‘Gondi language’ and no other language. In the circumstance s, it wo uld not be possible for us even to elicit any infor m ati on from them and interact with them. We are of the view that their security is a paramount consid eration. 39 It is equally important that they should be allowed to express themselves freely wi thou t be ing influenced by any outside agencies or individua ls. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to request Mr. G.P. Mittal, District Judge -I, Ti s Hazari, Delhi to record their statements in the presence of the interpreter, namely, Mohan S inha , as well as the first petitioner Mr. Himanshu Kumar, w ho i s stated to be conversant with their language. The District Judge shall first satisfy to himself th at the petitioners, who are required to be examined by him are not under any pressure or threa t fr om a ny quarter whatsoev er. We also request the District Jud ge to ensure their safety as along as they are in Delhi, for which purpose the Union of India shall comply with such directions as may be issued by the District Judge from time to time. The lea rned Att orney General for I ndia has stated before us that i n te rms of the directions to be issued by the District Judge, the Union of India shall ensure their saf ety and protection. We also permit the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Colin Gonsalv es o r an y other lawyer to b e nominated by him to be present in the proceedings before the District Judge along with counsel for the Union of India and the counsel for the State of Chhatisgarh. We make it very clear that the District Judge shall proceed t o re cord the statement only after being satisfied to himsel f th at the persons produced before him are free from any pressure and are capable of making statement f reely without being influenced by any of the outside agency/parties. The learned District Judg e is req uested to arrange f or a videography of the entire p roce edings. The Registrar Judicial will immediately convey this order to the District Judge. Copy of this order shall also be given to the counsel for all the parties. List this matter tomorr ow a t 1-15 p.m. in Court fo r further directions.” 40 37. Acco rdin g to Mr. Mehta, in context with the aforesaid order, various statements of the petitioners came to b e recorded by the District Judge -I and Sessions Judge, Delhi. The plain reading of such state ments of the petitioners wou ld indicate that they have no i dea as to what has been stated in the memorandum of the writ petition and for what reasons the writ peti tion came to be filed. The statements recorded by the Judicial Officer in accordance with the dire ctions issued by a Coor dinate Bench of this Court vide the order referred to above, destroys the entire case put up by the writ petitioner no.1. 38. Mr. Mehta urged before this Court to take a strict view of the matter. Mr. Mehta also pointed out that the U ni on of India has filed an Interlocutory Application No. 52290 of 2022 seeking appropriate action against the petitioners. We shall look into and deal with t he Interlocutory Application a little later. 39. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Meht a pr ays that this writ pe tition may be rejected with ex empl ary costs and appropriate action may be taken against the writ petitioners. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH : 40. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, the learned counsel appearing for the St ate of C hhattisgarh, has also vehemently opposed this writ peti tion. In a written note provided to us, Mr. Sodhi has 41 highlighted in what manner the Chhattisgarh P ol ice carried out the investigation of both the incidents and also the details as regards the regi stra tion of the FIRs. The s ame reads thus : “Crime No.: 04/ 2009 Police Station: Bhejji Date of Registration: 18/09/2009 Sections: 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC; 25 , 27 Arms Act. Date of Incident: 17.09.2009. Complainant: Shri Ravindra Singh, Assistant Comm dt. 201 Cobra Bn. Accuse d: Unknown Maoist Cadres and Sang am M embers Allegations: On information about the presencc of Naxal cadres, an anti -naxal operation was launched on 16.09.2009 from PS Bhejji towards Gachchanpalli, Aitrajpad and Entapad by the S ecurit y fo rces. Naxals made a life threatening attack on secu rity forces near Gachchanpalli and run away putting their shelter on fire. Gist of Final Report : Eve n after a long search no accused were found and on no possibility of finding in near future, c losu re r eport was filed be fore the Hon'ble court on 20.10.2 010. Present Status: According to the closure report presented by the investigating officer, even afte r a long search no accused were found and on no possibility of finding in near future closure repo rt i s accepted on 26.1 0.2010 by the learned chief Judic ial Magistrate. 42 Crime No.: 10/2009 : Police Station: Chintagufa Date of Registration: 20/09/2009 Sec tions: 395, 397, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC; 25, 27 Arms Act; 3,4 Explosive. Subs. Act. Date of Inc ident : 17.09.2009 an d 18.09.2009. Complainant: Shri Pr empr akash Awadhiya, Sub Inspector, PS. -Sukma Accused: Unknown Uniformed female and male naxalites ab ou t 200 -300. Allegations: On 16/09/2009, the police party left for Singanmadgu for Anti Naxal ope ratio n from police station Chintagufa. On the morning of 17/ 09/2009, when the party reached the dense forests of Singanmadgu, the camp of Naxalites were seen an d exchange of fire took place. After encounter in search of the place of incident weapons an d a body of naxal was re covered. Then after a while one km a head 200 -300 unknown Naxalites again cordoned the police party and attacked the Security forces, in wh ich - Assistant Commandant Shriram Manoranjan, Assistant Commandant Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaurasi ya, Sub Inspector Shri S ushil Kumar Varma, Head -Constable La lit Kumar, Constable Manoharlal Chandra and Constable Uday Kumar Yaday of Cobra Company were martyred an d four others Constable Satpal, Constable Harish Thakur, Constable Kamalvoshe and Constable Moha m mad Husain Quraishi were also injured. Gist of Final Repo rt: According to the investigating officer, even after a long search no accused were found and sin ce there was no possibility of finding in near future, closure report has been filed before th e Ho n’ble Trial court on 20.10.2010. Present Status: Accor ding to the closure report presented by the investigating officer, even after a long search no accused w ere found and on no possibility of 43 finding in near future closure report is accepted on 26.1 0.20 10 by the learned Ch ief Judicial Magistrate. Crime No. : 06 /2010 Police Station: Bhejji Date of Registration: 21/02/2010 Sections: 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC ; 25, 27 Arms Act. Date of Incident: Approximately three -four months ago at 7.00 am in the mor ning from the date of incident, (therefore, probable inciden t he re is 01.10.2009) Complainant: Shri Maadvi Hadma Address: Gachhanpalli (Petitioner No. 4) Accus ed : 20 -25 Unknown uniformed person holding gun and banda. Absconding accused - 1-Venktesh s/o Unk nown 2-Rajesh al ias Joga s/o Unknown 3-Vijay alias Vij ay a lias Ekanna 4-Savitri Bhai w/o Unknown 5-Manila w/o Unknown 6-Bhima s/o Unknown 7-Jayram s/o U nk nown 8-Samita w/o Chandrana 9-Bhaskar alias Rajesh s/o Venkteshwerlu 10 -Kavita D/o jayram Alle gatio ns: On 21/02 /2010 upon report of applicant Madvi Ha dma, resident of Gachchanpalli, FIR No.06/2010 u/s 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act was regist er ed at Police Station Bhejji against unknown naxalites for murder of Madvi Hidma, Madvi Joga, Kaw asi G anga, Madkam i Chula & Dudhi Muye. 44 Gist of Final R epor t: Chargesheet filed on 09/09/2010 against 10 named absconding accused u/sec.147, 148, 149, 302 IP C; 25, 27 Arms Act. Present Status: Permanent warrant has been issued against the absconding accu sed b y the Hon’bl e Judicial Magistrate First Class Konta . INCIDENT 2: 01.10.2009 (Gompad) 6. In respect of the incident dated 01.10.2010 that took place a t Gompad, the State of Chhattisgarh has already registered following FIRs against the offences com m itt ed on that da y. The details of the FIRs are: Crim e No .: 05/2009 Police Station: Bhejji Date of Registration: 25/11/2009 Sections: 147, 148, 149, 307 IP C; 25, 27 Arms Act. Date of Incident: 01.10.2009. Complainant: Shri Matram Bariha, Head Co nsta ble, PS. -Bhe jji Accused: Unknown Uniformed Naxalites in l arge numbers. Allegations: On the information of increased activities and camps of armed naxalites in Gompad village PS Bhejji, three teams of Cobra 201 Bn departed on an anti naxal operation on 3 0/09 /2009 fr om injram. On 01.10.2009 this combined part y wa s ambushed by Naxalites in Gompad. Gist of Final Report: According to the investigating officer, ev en after a long search no accused were found and on no possibility of finding in near future clo sure report is filed before the Hon’ble court on 20.10. 2010 Present Status : According to the closure report presented by the investigating officer, even aft er a long 45 search no accused were found and on no possibility of finding in near future closure rep ort is accep ted on 26.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judi cial Magistrate. Crime No.: 01/2010 Police Station: Bhejji Date of Registration : 08/01/2010 Sections : 396, 397 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Date of Incident : Approximately a week before Deewali. Com plai nant : Sh ri Soyam Rama (Petitioner No.2) Accused : Unk nown Armed uniformed person 20 -25 Absconding accused - 1-Venktesh s/o Unknown 2-Rajesh alias Joga s/o Un known 3-Vijay alias Vijay alias Ekanna 4-Savitri Bhai w/o Unknown 5-Manila w/o Unknown 6-Bhi m a s/o Unknown 7-Jayra m s/o Unknown 8-Samita w/o Chandrana 9-Bhaskar al ias Rajesh s/o Venkteshwerlu 10 -Kavita D/o Jayram Allegations: On 08/01/2010 upon information of applicant Soyam Rama s/o Soyam Kanna resident Gompad village, a FIR -01/2010 u /s 39 6, 397 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act w as registered in PS Bhejji and taken into inv esti gation against unknown naxalites causing murder of 7 deceased named - Madvi Baza r, Madvi Subbi, Madvi Mutti, Kattam Kanni, Madvi Enka, Soyam Subba and Soyam Jogi. Gist of Final Report: Chargesheet fi led on 09/09/2010 against 10 named absconding accus ed u /s 396, 397 IPC; 25, 27 Arms Act. Present Status: Permanent warrant has been i ss ued against the absconding accused by the Hon’ble 46 Judicial Magistrate First Class Konta. Crime No.: 07 2010 Police Statio n: Bhejji Date of Registration: 22/02/2010 Secti ons: 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, 25, 27 Arms Act. Date of Incident: A a pproximately five months ago in the morning from the date of incident, (therefore, probable incident here is 0 1.10.2009) Complainant: Sh ri. Komram Lachcha, Address - Chintagufa Accused : 20 -25 Unknown uniformed person holding gun and banda. Absconding accused - 1-Ve nk tesh s/o Unknown 2-Rajesh alias Joga s/o Unknown 3-Vijay alias Vijay alias Ekanna 4-Savit ri Bh ai w/o Unknown 5-Manila w/o Unknown 6-Bhima s/o Unknown 7-Jay ram s/o Unkn own 8-Samita w/o Chandrana 9-Bhaskar alias Rajesh s/o Venkteshwerlu 10 -Kavita D/ o Jayram Allegations: On 22/02/2010 upon report of applicant Komram Lachcha, resident of Ch intag ufa, FIR No.07/2010 u/s 1 47, 148, 149, 302 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act was registe red at PS - Bhejji against unknown naxalites for murder of Komram Mutta. Gist of Final Report: Chargesheet filed on 09/09/2010 against 10 named absconding accused u/sec.147, 148, 149, 302 IPC & 25, 27 Ar ms Act. Present Status: Permanent warrant has been iss ued against the absconding accused by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Cl as s Konta.” 47 41. Mr. Sodhi also highlighted the following contradictions and anomalies in th e cas e of the petitioners : “1. Ho t oil theory retracted: Petitioner claimed i n th e Writ Petition at Page E of the Synopsis and Page 9 of the Petition Paper book that one Muchki Deva (60yrs) of Ondhep ara was grazing cattle on the morning of 17 th Septemb er. He was caught, beaten and dragg ed into the village by security forces. He was han ged upside down from a tree and a pot of oil was lit below and he was dropped i nt o it. As a result, the upper part of his body was severely burnt and he had developed magg ots in his wounds. However, there after the Petitioners filed an Application bef ore this Hon’ble Court dated 02.02.2010 bearing Crl.M.P. No. 3173/2010 seeking dire ct ions from this Hon’ble Court. In the said Application, the Petitioners retracted the Hot O il The ory in Paragraph 18 of t he Ap plication stating that it was a mistake that t ook place during translations. It was now claimed that Muchki was burnt by electroc ut ion by attaching wires to his head. It is important to note that the present Writ Petiti on was filed on around 27.10.2 009, notice by this Court was issued on 23.11.2009 on t he basis of the contents of the Writ Petition, and the Interlocutory Applicatio n bearing Cri. MP No. 3173.2010 was moved on 02.02.2010. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that P etitioners have changed their stand multiple times in respect of serious al lega tions levelled against the defence forces of the country and the Chhattisgarh Pol ice Department. 2. Contradictions in complaint vis -a-vis Sec. 164 Statements about killi ngs - Petitioner No. 5 in th e com plaint filed alongwith the present Writ Petiti on a t Page 35 of the Paperbook has 48 alleged that his son was killed on 17.09.2009 by SPOs. It is pertinent to note that the State of Chhattisgarh in its affidavit dated 30.08.2 010 ha s stated in paragraph 8 that in Statement of Petitioner No. 5 recorded unde r Se ction 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on 11.03.2010, he has stated tha t his son was killed three years ago. 3. False narrative sought to be created in Petitione r’s Wr itten submissions - A plain reading of Paragraph 13 of the Written Submis sion s filed by the Petitioner creates a brutal impression of the security forces to the effect that Petitioner No.13’s two year old grandchild was killed after chopping off th e chil d’s fingers. The purport ed cy clostyle complaint of Petitioner No. 13 is at Page 53 whereas her statement recorded under orders of this Court can be found at P ag e 171 of the Paperbook. A perusal of both these documents reveals that no such case was ev er mad e out by Sodhi Sambo i.e . Pet itioner No. 13. 4. Non -corroboration of cont ents of Writ Petition with statements made by the Petitioners before District Judge appointed by this Court — Looking at the seriousness of the allegations contained in the Writ P etition, which were vehe mentl y denied by the State, this Court directed tha t st atements of Petitioner Nos. 2 -13 be recorded by a District Judge at New Delhi. A bare perusal of the statements made by the Petitioners reveal that none of the Petitioners corro borate the allegations m ade i n the writ petition. Further the petitioners d o no t even say that their relatives were killed by uniformed persons. - Ref can be ma de to the Statements - Page 154 onwards 5. No Affidavit of authorisation of Petitioners No. 2 to 13 It is pertinent t o not e that the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner No. 1 (Himanshu Kumar) on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 to 13. However, there is 49 no affidavit on record whereby Petitioners No. 2 to 13 have authorised Petitioner No. 1. ” 42. In such circumsta nces referred to above, Mr. Sodhi prays that there b eing no merit in the present writ petition, the same may be rejected with exemplar y costs and appropriate actions against each of the writ petitioners for misleading the Cour t and fabricating false eviden ce. ANALYSIS : 43. Having heard the learned couns el a ppearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the o nly question that falls for our consideration is, whether any case has been made out by the writ petitioners for the inve stigat ion of the two incidents through the CBI. POS ITIO N OF LAW : 44. It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto compl ain ant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of h is leg al or fundamental righ ts ag ainst high Government officials or influential pers ons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offe nce by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of the State of West Bengal and others v . Committee f or Protection 50 of Democratic Rights, West Bengal , reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, has mad e t he following observations pointing out the situations where the prayer for investigation by the CBI should be allowed : “70. … In so far as the question of issuing a direct ion to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexibl e g uidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers should be exercised, but t ime a nd again it has been re iterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptio nal situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and i nst il confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national an d internati ona l ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcin g the fundamental ri gh ts. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a larg e number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigat e e ven serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfac tory inves tigations. ” (empha si s supplied) 45. In the above decision, it was a lso pointed out that the same court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Se rvi ces, U.P. v . Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr. , (2002) 5 SCC 521, had said that an order directi ng an enq uiry by the CBI sho uld be passed only when the High Court, after con sid ering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an 51 investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. 46. In an appropriate case wh en the Court feels that the investigation by the pol ice authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in th e c ase and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be j ustified in such circumstanc es to handover the investigation to an independen t agency like the CBI. By now it is well -settled that even after the filing of the charge she et the court is empowered in an appropriate case to handover the investigation to an i ndependen t agency like the C BI. 47. The extraordinary power of the Constituti ona l Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the is sua nce of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great cau tion as u nderlined by this Court in the case of Committee for Protection of Demo cratic Rights, West Bengal (supra ) as adverted to herein above, observing that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that su ch an ord er cannot be passe d as a matter of routine or merely because the par tie s have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in excepti ona l situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the in vestigation or whe re the incident may have national or 52 international ra mifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enf orcing the fundamental rights. We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, i m partial and effective investigation eroding its c red ence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or r e- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial c an , by no means , be a prohib itive impediment. The contextual facts and the atte nda nt circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulne ss of further investigation or re -investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the p arties. The prime c oncern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a c omm itted, resolved and a competent investigating agency. 48. The above principle has bee n reitera ted in K .V. Rajendr an v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chenn ai , (2013) 12 SCC 480 . Dr . B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking for a three - Judge Bench of thi s C ourt held : “13 . … This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circ umsta nces the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to an y other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the pow er of transferring such 53 investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court f inds it necessary in order t o do justice between the parties and to insti l confiden ce in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibil ity and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particula rly, w hen it is imperative t o retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. … ” 49. Elaborating on this principle, this Court further ob served: “17 . … the Court could exercise its constitutional powers fo r transferring an investig ation from the State investi gating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high offici als of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is again st the top officials of th e investigating agency there by allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the in vestigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be ta inted/biased.” 50. The Co urt reiterated that an inves tigation may be transferred to the CBI only in “rare an d exceptional cases”. One factor that courts may consider is that such trans fer is “imperative” to retain “public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.” This observation must be re ad with the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Committee for Protection of Democra tic Rights , West Bengal (sup ra) , that mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation. 51. In Romila Thapar v . Uni on of India , (2018) 10 SCC 753 , one o f us, A.M . Khanwilkar , J., speaking for a three -Judge 54 Bench of this Court (D r. D .Y. Chandrachud, J. dissenting) noted the dictum in a line of precedents laying down the p rinciple that the accused “d oes not have a s ay in the matter of appointment of investi gating agency”. In reiterating this principle, this Court relied upon its ea rlier decisions in Narmada Bai v . State of Gujarat , (2011) 5 SCC 79, Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v . Union of India , (2016) 1 SCC 1, E. Sivakumar v . Union of India , (2018) 7 SCC 365, and Divine R etreat Centre v . State of Kerala , 2008) 3 SCC 542 . This Court obs erv ed: “30…the consistent view of this Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the inve stigating agency or to do in vestigation in a particular manner including for court - mo nitored investigation.” 52 . It has been held by this Court in CBI & ano the r v . Raje sh Gandhi and another , 1997 Cr.L.J 63, that no one ca n insist that an offence be inves tigated by a part icular agen cy. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be inve sti gated pro perly, but he has no right to claim that it be inve st igated by any particular agency o f his choice. 53. The princ iple of law that emerges from t he precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” an d only “in exceptional circumstances”. In 55 assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the i nvestigation must be transfe rred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. 54. Bearin g i n mind the position of law as discussed above, we now proceed to consider, whether in the facts of the present case, more p articularly, from t he materials on record, it has been prima facie esta bl ished that it is a fit case for allowing the praye rs of t he writ petitioners for investigation by the CBI. 55. We are really taken by surprise that the lea rned senior counsel appearin g for the writ pet itioners is absolutely oblivious of the fact that all the FIRs were investigated by the concerned investi gating age ncies and, at the end of the investigation, charge sheets came to be filed in different courts of the State of Chhattisgarh for the offences under the IPC like murder, dacoity, etc . 56. We are of the view, having regard to the materials on record, that no case , worth th e name for further investiga tion or re-investigation , could also be said to have been made out . 57. The filing of the charge sheets at the concl usion of the investigation into the various FIRs referred to above would indi cate that the alle ged massacre was at the end of the Naxalites ( Ma oists). The materials collected in the form of the 56 charge sheets substantiate the case put up by the respondents that the villagers were attacked and killed by th e Naxalites. There is not an iota of material fig uring in the investigation on the basis of wh ich even a finger can be pointed towards th e membe rs of the police force. 58. If we go by the tenor of the writ petition, it gives an impression that proper investigation is not being done and, therefore, the sa me should be handed over to the CBI. However, the fact is th at the investigation has already be en carried out and cha rg e sheets have been filed. Unfortunately, neither t he learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners nor any of the writ pet iti oners, more particularly, the wr it petitioner no.1, the protagonist behind the filing of the pr esent writ petition, ru nn ing an NGO, has any idea about the charge sheets a nd the materials collected in the course of the investigation. If the investigation ha s already been carried out and ch arge sheets have been filed and if the court has to now consid er the plea of the writ petitioners, then the same would become a case of further investigation. 59. We shall highlight as to why we are say ing so as abov e. We come back to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 15 th February 2010. Purs uant to the same, the stateme nts of th e petitioners were recorded by the District and 57 Sessions Ju dge, Delhi. We may quote one such statement recorded by t he Dist rict and Sessions Judge of the petitioner no.2, namely, Soyam Rama. We quote the entire sta teme nt as under : “Present: Peti tioner No .1 Himansu Kumar alongwith Counsel Shri Colin Gonslaves. Sr . Advocate alongwith Shri Divya Jyoti, Advo cate. Shri A tul Jh a Advocate alongwith Shri D.K. Sinha Advocate, Counsel for State of Chattisgarh. Shri P.K. Dey , Advocate on behalf of UOI a longwith Shri Jitender, Advocate. Shri R.K. Tanwar, Addl. PP for Go vt. of NCT of Delhi alongwith Shri Navin Ku mar, Asstt.Pub lic Pr osecutor At 3:49 p.m., order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ P etit ion (Cr.) 103/09 titled as Hi manshu Ku mar & Ors vs. State of Chattishgarh, was received in my o ffice titled as Himanshu Kr. & Ors. Before that, I had re cei ved a telephonic call from Mr. T.Sivadasan, Registrar (Judicial), informing me about the order pass ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou rt. At about 5 pm., the file of the writ petition was received. Th ereafter corrigendum of this order, wherein , name of peti tio ner No.8 was mentioned at page 2 of the order was also received. At about 6 pm the petitioners had reached my court No.301. The counsel f or the parties aforementioned were also present. I have tal ked to the Counsels for the parties as well as petitioner No .1 in the court and have explained that I 58 shall be talking to each of the petitioners. Except t he petitioners, all the persons i ncluding the counsel were requested to move out of the court room. I got down from the dias and talked to the p etitioners thr oug h petitioner No.1 Himanshu Kumar. I tried to make petitioners comfortable and served them with tea and biscuits. I have enquired from the m if there was any fear or pressure from any quarter whic h they have negatived. I have told the petiti oners present tha t I would be calling them one by one for the purpose of recording their statements in the adjoi ning Room No.302 in Tis Hazari Co urt. In the first instance, petitioner No.2 Shri Soyam Rama has be en called. Apart from the abovenamed Counse l for the part ies , petitioner No.1 Shri Himanshu Kumar and interpreter Shri Mohan Sinha have also been called in roo m No.302. Petitioner No.2 has been mad e to sit in the middle of the petitioner No.1 and Shri Mo ha n Sinha, the interpreters. Let statement of Sh. Soyam R ama be recorded. Question: What is your name ? Ans. : My name is Soyam Rama Question: Where do y ou stay? Ans. I am resident of villa ge Gompad. Q. Do you have any proof of identity: Ans. I do not have one. Q. Do you know for what purpose you h ave been brought here ? A. The persons from our family have died and therefore, I have come. 59 Q . Ha s anybody put any pressure up on you to make any particular statement ? Has anybody terrorized you ? Ans. Nobody has pressurized or terrori zed me . Q. Do yo u want to make a statement of your own free will ? A. Yes. (I am satisfied that Shri Soyam Ram a is not under any pressure c oercion o r terror to make the statement.) I feel that the statem en t being made by him is out of his free will . Let the sta tem ent be recorded on oath. The oath be also administered to both the interpreters. Statement of Sh ri Soyam Rama s/o Shri Soyam Kanna, ag ed 38 years r/o village Gopade, on S.A. (through interpre te r Shri Mohan Sinha, in presence of petition er Himanshu Kum ar. Both the interpreters have also stated on oath that whatever shall be asked from the witness a nd his answers shall be interpre ted corre ctly & truly). On. 1.10.2009, there was a firing in the house of my paternal uncle Madhvi Bajaar. In the firing, my pa ternal uncle Madvi Bajaar and paternal aunt Smt. Madvi Sudvi Subi and niece Madvi Muddi and Smt . Kartan Katti were killed. One more pers on, whose name I cannot tell, was also killed in the firi ng . We had run away from the spot and therefo re, could not s ee as to who had opened fire. 60 Question: Are you sure that this firing had taken place on 1.10.20 09 or before that ? Ans. I am sure, the firing had taken place on 01.10.2009. Some other perso ns were also killed, but not in my presence. Question: Can yo u say, if any other weapon was used in the above mentioned killing or it was only by bullets ? Ans. In the first instance, th e above n amed four persons were stabbed with knife and thereafter, they were shot with bullets. Question: Can you tell the de scription of the firearm if the same was a big gun or a pistol ? Ans. I cannot tell the same. I he ard the shot and then ran awa y. Ques tion: Who had caused the said injury and who had opened t he fire ? Ans. The persons who stabbed the above stated per sons and opened fire, had come from the Jungle. I ran away after the above stated persons were stabb ed and fire was opened. Que stion: Wo uld you be in a position to identify the assailants. An s. I would not be in a position to identify t hem . Questi on: Do you want to say anything else. Ans. I do not want to say anything further. Left thumb im press ion of Sd/ - Soyam Rama District Judge -I/Delhi 15.02.2010 Sh. G.P.MITTAL District Judge -I & Sessions Judge 61 (We h ave interprete d t he questions and answers truly and have gone through the statement of the witness recorded abo ve . The same is correct Sd/ - Sd/ - (Himanshu Kumar) D.J., -1/15 -2-2010 Sh. G.P.MITTAL District Judge -I & Sessions Judge Sd/ - (Mohan Sinh a)” (emphasis supplied) 60 . All other statements of the rest of the writ petitioners are on the s am e line and footing. 61. When we called upon Mr. Gon salves to make us understand as to why his clients had to make su ch statements before the Judicial Officer , a very curious reply came from Mr. Gonsalves. According to Mr. Gonsalves, the entire mode and m an ner in which the state m ents were recorded by the Ju dicial Of ficer of the rank of District and Sessions Judge was abs ol utely incorrect. According to the learn ed senior counsel, specific questions ought to have been put by the Judicial Officer to each of t he writ petitioners whil e recording their statements in accord ance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 15 th February 2010 referred to abo ve. 62 . We are afraid, we are not in a position to accept such submission after a period of almos t 12 years. The statemen ts we 62 are referring to record ed by th e Judicial Officer are of the year 2010. Not once in the last 12 years any grievance has been made ei ther orally or in writing be fore this Court as regards the mode and manner of recording of the statements. It is for the first time in 12 yea rs that such a grievance has been made. Had the writ petitioner s raised such a plea at the appropriate time and con temporaneous ly as regar ds the mode and manner of the recording of the statements, this Court w ou ld have passed necessary orders asking the Judicial Officer to record t he further statement s in a particular manner. It is too late in the day now to cast an y insinuations or aspersions against the Judicial Of ficer of the rank of District and Sessions Ju dg e, who had acted under the directions of this Court. 63 . What we are trying to convey is that the statements of the petitioners nos.2 to 13 recorded before t he Judicial Officer demolishe s the entire case pu t up by the petitioner no.1, who is running a n N GO . 64 . It appears from the materials on record that all those persons who have been arraigned as accused and against whom charge sheets ha ve been fi led are ab sco nding. It is now for the concerned trial court to take appropriate steps in this regard. If th e persons named as accused in the charge sheets are absconding, then it is expected of the investigating agenc y to 63 take necessary steps for their arr est. In an y v iew of the matter, it is now for the trial cou rt to do the needful in accordance with law. 65 . In the overall view of the matter, we have reached to the conclusion that no case, worth the name, has been m ade out by the writ petitione rs for an y further inve stigation much less through an independent agency to be appointed by this Court . In the facts of the above c as e, we are of the view that the conditions laid down by this Court in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Ri ghts, West Bengal (su pra ) qu oted e ar lier are not fulfilled. 66. The writ petit ion accordingly fa ils and is hereby reje ct ed with exemplary cost s of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees Five Lakh Only ). The requisite amount towards the costs shall be paid by the petitioner no.1 viz. Himanshu Ku m ar. The petitioner no.1 shall deposit the amount with the Supreme Court Legal Services Author ity wi thi n a period of 4 weeks from today; failing w hich, it shall be open for the authority concerned to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for the re cove ry of the requisite amount. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 64 INTER LOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 52290 OF 2022 67. This is an applicat ion at the instance of the Union of India with the following prayers : “(a) Hold the petitioners guilty o f leveling false charges of offence and of gi vin g false and fabricated evidence bef ore t his Hon’ble Court with an intention to procure convict io n for a ca pital offence or for life imprisonment agai nst the personnel of security forces and to screen off the actual offenders of Left Wing (Naxal) terrori sm; (b) Pass an order directing CBI/N IA or any other central investigating agency or any other m on itoring co mmittee, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit an d proper, to register an FIR and conduct an in -depth invest igation to identify the individuals/organizat ion s, who have been conspiring, abetti ng an d facilitating filing of petitions premised on false a nd fabric ate d evidence before this Hon’ble Court as wel l as before the Hon’ble High Courts with a motive to either deter the security agencies to act against t he Left Wi ng (Naxal) militia by imputi ng fa lse charges on them or to screen off the Left Wing (Na xa l) mili tia from being brought to justice by creating a false narrative of victimization before the Hon’ble Court s; (c) And direct appropriate action against th e Petit ioners and other person/s re spons ible for the aforesaid acts of perjury; (d) Pass any ot her jus t a nd reasonable orders to meet the ends of ju stice.” 68. We have closely looked into the averments made in the Interlocutory Application. 65 69. Mr. Tush ar Mehta , the learned Solicitor Gene ral h as pressed this application very hard. 70 . Although n o particul ar nomenclature has been given to this applica tion, yet it is apparent that the same is under Section 34 0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (fo r s hort, “the CrPC ”) read with Section 195 o f the Cr PC. The Union o f India wants this Court to in itiate appropriate proceedings against th e writ petitioners for the offence of perju ry punishable under Section 19 3 of the IPC . The Union of India vehemently a sse rts that the writ petitioners are gu ilty of levell ing false charges of various offences and co ul d be said to have fabr ica ted evidence before this Court in a judicia l proceedings. The Union of India asserts th at the writ petitioner no.1 has affirmed the fal se averm ents made in the writ petiti on on oath. He could be said to have made a false affidavi t. The making of false a ffi davit and giving false evidence comes withi n the purview of Section 191 of the I PC . 71 . Before we proceed to examine this applicatio n f iled by the Union of India, we must look into few averments made therein : “4. Shockingly, in th e petiti on, the petitioner had portrayed the incidents of 17.9.2009 and 1.10.2009, as an act of not restricted t o extra judicial killings, but had sought to por tray suc h acts as act of barbarian is m com mitted by security forces, where the. special operati on teams o f p olice and paramilitary forces were alleged to have indulged into torturing, 66 looting and outraging the modesty of family members of those encounter ed. The Pet itioners had, thus, on aff id avit, narrated incidents alleging it to be gruesome killin gs and mas sac res of innocent tribal villagers on 17.9.20 09 and 1.10.2009, in the petition. It is pertinent to me ntion here that the acts of torture and killi ngs of the villagers have been pleade d to be of such beastly and horrific nature, so as to invoke and insti gat e an instantaneous response of outrage by t his Hon’ble Court, undeniably leading to grant of relief/i nterim relief as prayed in the petition. In p ith and sub stance, the reliefs prayed w ere o f the nature where operations of security forces were sought to be halted and Left Wing Extremists were sough t to be granted legal protection under the narrative of vi ctimization. 8. It is respectfully submitted th at a bar e perusal of the recording s etc. submitted by the Ld. District Judge before this Hon'b le Court r eve als that all the averments made by the peti tioner in the petition were ex -facie false and fabricated and it is now clear that all the said deceitf ul averment s were made by the petitio ne r wit h malicious and audacious attempt to mislead this Hon 'b le court an d to obtain orders from this court by playi ng fraud on its conscience and magnanimity. 9. In the res pectful submission of the applicant, it is ap par ent that the said insolent false a ve rment s were made with a malafide objective to change the nar rative o f t he incident and with malicious designs i.e. to portray the dreaded Left Wing Extremists (Naxals), who were waging an armed rebellion against the s ecu rity for ces of the country and thr ea tenin g the sovereignty and integrity of the country, as in no cent tri bal victims being massacred by the security fo rces. 10. This was done with a deceitful design to instig ate an instantaneous response of outrage by t his H on’ble Court and mislead it to p as s adv erse orders against security forces under an erroneou s assumpti on of facts causing an adverse and deterrent e ffect on the 67 operations and morale of the security forces. It is submitted that the modus adopted in th e i nstant c ase, has over the period o f time, become a norm where false petitions are filed by ind iv iduals a nd organization who are either supporters of L eft Wing Extremism or benefit, financially and politically , from Left Wing Extremist activities and pro tec tive ord ers are obtained from the co urts by playing fraud . Further absence of a stern action b ei ng taken ag ainst them for playing fraud on the court h as embolden them who have now made a practice of filing su ch false and vexatious petitions based on sel f-serving/s elf - generated fact finding report s. 11. Aposteriori, it has become clear that this fa ls e narrat ive of a massacre of innocent tribals by secur ity forces was created to somehow achieve immediate cessat ion of advancement of the security forces aga ins t the co rnered armed Left Wing Ext re mists . The said object was sought to be achieved, and was in fact ac hie ved by the petitioner, by misleading this H on'ble Court and by seeking adverse orders against securit y forces by portraying false facts/ picture befo re the c ourt and by playing fraud on this Hon'ble Court. 12. In addition to the same the purp os e and mo tiv e of the present petition was also to derai l the ongoing efforts of security forces in neutralizing t he Left Wing Extremism movement and the armed Le ft Wing Extremists; to take away t he dign ity and credibility of security forces and the attemp ts made by th em to neutralize the armed rebellion by Lef t Wing Extremists; to lower the moral of the security agen cies by portraying them as demons and nationa l v illains, i.e. slayers of innocent tribal people; and to foist false cases on them so that in f ut ure the sai d false cases acts as a deterrent and chill ing factor for the rest of the members of the armed forces in planning or participating in a similar op era tions. I t is submitted that all th is was done before the highest court of the country and at t he altar o f t he national security. This was a fraud played on t he constitutional remedies and an abus e thereof of the highest order. 68 13. In effect in the resp ect ful subm ission of the applicant/UOI, it is now also apparent that the present ex -facie false a nd fraudulent pe tit ion was filed to deceit this Hon'ble court and to provide a legal protective shield to the memb ers of Left Wing Extremist outfits. In the re spe ctful su bmission of the applicant the pr esent petition is nothing but a subterfuge and a part of the conspirac y t o cover the offence committed by the Left W ing Extremists and to facilitate unhindered future o perations by weakening the security forces wh ich is the only challenge deterring their i ntentions and operations. The petitioners, in the resp ec tful submissio n o f the applicant, by preferring the instant deceitful petition, have not only conspired and abet ted the commissioning of the crime but have a lso conspir ed and abetted in covering up th e crime and screening the offenders/perpetrators of Le ft Wing (Naxal) ter rorism. 14. It is submitted that scurrilou s allegations made against the security personnel of the country have nevertheless has brought ab out a chill ing effect of demoralizing the e sprit de corps and self -esteem of the members of the f or ces, which has be en since then acted against national intere sts. 15. In this perspective, when it is manifested that the present petition was nothing but a fra ud on th is Hon'ble court, where orders w ere sought to be obtained from this Hon'ble court thro ug h deceitful de sig ns/fabricated and false assertions, it has become incumbent and imperative, both in the interes t of justice, as well as, in the interest of sec urity of the nation that the people and organizations involved in playing fraud on constitutio na l remedies and on whose instance false affidavits, pleadings and evidence have been submitted before this Hon'bl e Court are identified and appropriate crimin al action i s initiated against them. This i s necessary to serve as a deterrent against repeating su ch modus. 22. It is submitted that in the process, the secu rity personal have been made scapegoats to bear the brunt of false accusations. It is an admitted fa ct that 69 rarely does any individual secur ity personal comes forward to contest such allegations , since their se rvi ce protocol deters them from doing so. Unwi ttingly and unfairly, they become easy targets of su ch accusations leading to a resigned acceptan ce of such blemishes as an incident of duty . Such an environment for the functioning of security ap paratus in any co untry is extremely undesirable and in fact dangerous for the security of the nation and its peo ple. The trust reposed by the society in the pol ice and other security personal is covet ed and necessary for the smooth functioning of any adm in istration. The la w enforcement machinery is not and cannot a ppear to be blemished. Moreover, it is also a fact t hat wherever any such machinery is found to b e i ndulging in illegal or irregular activit ies, this Hon’ble Court and other courts have been pro mp t and undeterr ed in taking action against such personal. How ever, there is an expedient and urgent need to guard against irresponsible, unjustified and by fa r, brazen f alse accusations against the sec urity personal.” POSITION OF LAW : “Indian Penal Cod e Section 191. Givin g f alse evidence. — Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to m ake a decl aration upon any subject, makes a ny statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be fa lse or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Section 192. Fabricating false evidence. — Whoever causes any circumsta nce to exi st or makes any false entry in an y book or record, or electronic record or makes any do cu ment containing a false statement, intending t hat such circumstance, false entry or false st atement may appear i n evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a pro ceeding taken by law before a public ser vant as such, or befor e an arbitrator, and that such c ircumstance, false entry or false statement, so app earing in evidence, may cause any person wh o in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to ent ertain an erroneous opinion touching any 70 point material to the resu lt of such proceeding, is s ai d to “to fabricate false evidence”. Section 193. Pu nis hment for false evidence. - Whoever intenti onally gives f alse evidence in any stage of a judicial proc eed ing, or fabricates false evidence for th e purpose of being use d in any st age of a judicial pro ce eding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de scription for a term which may extend to se ven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever in ten tionall y gives or fabricates false evide nce in any other case, shall be p unished with imprison me nt of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to f ine.” Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 Section 195. Pros ecu tion f or contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for of fences against pu blic justice an d for offences relating to documents given in evidence. — (1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) ... .... .... … (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the f ollowing sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), n amely, sections 1 93 to 196 (bo th inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, whe n such offence is alleged to have been comm itted in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any cou rt, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punisha ble under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offen ce is al leg ed to have been committed in respect of a d ocumen t produced or given in evidence in a proceedi ng in any court, or (iii) of any crimina l conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commi t, or the abe tm ent of, any offence specified in sub - clause (i) or sub -claus e ( ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as th at Court may authorize in writing in this behalf , or of some other Court to which that Court is sub ordinate. 71 Section 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in s ection 195 . — (1) When up on an application made to it i n this behalf or otherwise , any Court is of o pin ion th at it is expedient in the intere st of justice that an inquiry should be made into any of fe nce referred to in clause (b) of sub -section (1) of secti on 195, which appears t o have been committed in or in r elation to a proceeding in that Court or, a s the case may be, in respect of a document pr oduced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Cou rt, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if an y, as it thinks necessa ry, - (a) record a finding to th at effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in w riting; (c) send it to a Magistrate of t he first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Ma gistrate, or if the all eged offence is non -bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do , sen d the accu sed in custody to such Magistrat e; a nd (e) bind over any person to appear and given evi de nce before such Magistrate; (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub -section (1 ) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither ma de a compl aint under sub -section (1) in re spec t of that offence nor rejected an application for th e making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to whi ch such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub - section (4) of Section 195. (3) A co mpl aint m ade u nde r this section shall be signed, - (a) where the Court making the complaint is a H igh Court, by such officer of the Court as the court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the pres iding offic er of the court or by such officer of the Cou rt as the Cou rt may authori se in writing in this behalf . (4) In this section, “ Court” has the sa me mean ing as in section 195.” 72 72 . Thus, from the ab ove, it follows that there are two conditions, on fulfillment of which, a complaint can be filed against a pe rson w ho has given a false affidavit o r evidence in a proceeding before a court. The first con di tion bei ng that a person has given a false affidavi t in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opin ion of the court it is expedient in the inter est of ju stice to make an inq uiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by h im . 73. In K. Karunakaran v . T.V. Eachara Warrier and another , reported in AIR 1978 SC 290, this Court held in par agraphs 19, 20 and 21 as under : “19. Chapter XX VI of the Code of Crimina l Procedure 1973 makes provisions as to offences affecting the admini st ratio n o f justice. Sec. 340, Cr.P.C, with which the chapter opens is the equivalent of the old Section 476 of th e Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The chapter has under gon e one significant chan ge with regard to the provision of appeal which was there under the old sect ion 476 -B, Cr.P.C. Under Section 476 -B, Cr.P.C. (old) there was a right of appeal from the order of a subordinate court to the superior court to w hic h appe als o rdinarily lay from an appea lable decree or sentence of such former court. Under Sec tion 476 -B (old) th ere would have ordinarily been a right of appeal against the order of the High Court to this Co urt. There is, however, a distinct departure fro m that posit ion under Section 341, Cr. P.C. (new) with regard to an appeal against the order of a High Court un der Section 340 to this Court. An order of the High Court made under sub -section (1) or sub -sectio n (2) of Section 340 is specifically excluded fo r the purpos e of appeal to the sup erio r court under Section 341 (1), Cr.P.C (new). This is, th er efore, a new r est riction in the way of the appellant when he approaches this 73 Court under Art icle 136 of the Cons titution. 20. Whether, suo motu, or on an ap pli cation by a par ty under Section 340 ( 1), Cr.P.C., a court having been already seized of a matt er may be tentative ly of opinion that further action against some party or witness may be necessary in the interes t of justice. In a proceeding under Section 3 40 (1), C r.P.C, th e reasons recorded in the principal case, in which a false statement has been m ad e, have a great b ear ing and indeed action is taken having regar d to the overall opinion formed by the court in t he earlier proceedings. 21. At an enquiry he ld by the court un der Section 340 (1), C r.P.C, irrespective of the result of the main case, the o nl y question is whe the r a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to e stablish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interest of ju stice to take such action.” 74 . In Baban Singh and anoth er v. Jagdish Sing h a nd others , reported in AIR 1967 SC 68, this Court observed the following in paragraph 7 as un der : “7. The matter has to be considered fro m t hree s tand poin ts. Does the swearin g o f the false affidavits amount to an offence under S.199, Indian Penal Code or under either Ss.191 or 192, Indian Penal Co de? If it comes under the two latter sections, t he present prosecution cannot be sustained , Sect ion 19 9 deals w ith a declaration an d d oes not state that the declaration must be on oath. The on ly condition nec ess ary is that the declaration must be capable of being used as evidence and which any Court of justice or any public servant or other person , i s boun d or auth orized by law to rec eiv e as evidence. Section 191 deals with evidence on oath a nd S.192 with fabr ica ting false evidence. If we consider this mat ter from the standpoint of S.191, Indian Penal Co de the offence is constituted by swearing fal sel y when one is bound by oath to stat e t he truth because an affidavit 74 is a declaration made unde r an oath. The def ini tion of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. The offence may also fall within S.192. It lays down inter al ia that a person i s said to fabricate fal se evidence if he makes a document containing a false st at ement intending tha t such false statement may appear in evidenc e in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in ev idence may cause any person who, in such proc eed ing is to form an opinion upon the evi dence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any po in t material to th e r esult of such proceeding. When Baban Singh a nd Dharichhan Kuer made declarations in their aff idavits which were tendered in the High Court to be ta ken into consideration, they int ended the statements to appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, and s o a ppearing, to cause the Court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. In t his way their offence came within the words o f S s. 191 /192 rath er than S.199 of the In dian Penal Code. They were thus prima facie guilty of an offence of giving false evidence or of fabricating false ev idence for the purpose of being used in a ju dicial pro ceeding.” 75 . The law under Section 340 of t he CrPC on initiating proceedings has bee n laid down in s everal of our judgments. Thus in Chajoo Ra m v . Radhey Shyam , (1971) 1 SCC 774, this Court, in para 7, stated as under : “7. … No doubt giving of false evi de nce and filing false affidavits is an evil whi ch mus t be effectively curbed with a s trong hand but t o start prosecution for perjur y too read ily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclus ive and doubtful material defeats its very pur po se. Prosecution should be ordered when it i s c onside red expedient in the interests o f justice to pun ish the delinquent and not mer ely becaus e there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or im ma terial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substanc e a nd the court should be satisfied that there is reasona ble foundation for the charge. ” 75 76. Si mi larly in Chandrapal Singh and Others v . Maharaj Singh and Another , ( 198 2) 1 SCC 466, this Court, in para 14, sta te d as under : “14. That leaves for our cons ide ration the alleged offence under Secti on 199. Section 199 provides punishment for m aking a fal se statement in a declaration which is by law receivable in evidenc e. We will assume that the affidavits filed in a proceeding for allotment of premises before th e Rent Control Officer are receivable as evidence. It is complained that certain av erments in th ese affidavits are false though no specific averment is singled o ut for this purpose in the complaint. When it i s alleged that a false statement has been mad e i n a de claration which is receivable as evidence in any Court of Justice or before a ny public s er vant or other person, the statement alleged to be false has to be se t o ut and its alleged falsity with reference to the truth found in some document has to b e r eferre d to pointing out that the two s ituations cannot co -exist, both being attribu table to th e same person and, therefore, one to his knowledge must be false. R iva l c ontentions set out in affidavits accepted or rejected by courts with reference to onus pr obandi do not furnish foundation for a charge under Se ction 199, I.P.C. To illustra te the poin t, appellant -1 Chandrapal Singh alleged that he was in possession of on e r oom forming part of premises No. 385/2. The learned Additional District Judge after scr utinis ing all rival affidavits did not accept this conte ntion. It thereby does not be come fals e. The only inference is that the statement made by Chandrapal Singh did no t inspire confidence looking to other r elev ant evidence in the case. Acceptance or r eje ction of evidence by itself is not a sufficient yardstic k to dub the one rejected as false. Fa ls ity can be alleged when truth stands out glaringly and to the knowl edg e o f the person who is making the false st atem ent. Day in and day out, in courts averme nts m ade by one set of witnesses are acce pted and the count er averments are rejected. If in all s uc h 76 cases complaints under Section 199, I.P.C. are to be filed not on ly the re will open up floodgates of litigatio n bu t it would unquestionably be an abuse of the proce ss of the Court. The learned Cou nsel for the respo ndents told us that a tendenc y to perj ur e is very much on the increase and unless by firm action courts do not pu t their foot down heavily upon such per sons the whole judicial process would come to ridicule . We see some force in the submi ssion but it is eq ually true that chagrined and frustrat ed litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustratio n b y c heaply invoking jurisdiction of the cri mina l court. Complainant herein is an Advocat e. H e los t in both courts in the rent con trol proceedings a nd has now rushed to the crim inal cour t. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit be twe en the parties was pending from 1975. T he c onclusion is inescapable that invoking th e j urisdi ction of the criminal court in t his background is an abuse of the process of la w and the H igh Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining t o e xer cise its power under Section 482, Cr. P .C.” 77. Both the aforesaid judgments were ref erred to and relied upon with approval in R.S. Sujatha v . State of Karnataka and Oth ers , (2011 ) 5 SCC 689. This Court, after setting down the law laid down in the se two judgments concluded: “18. Thus, from th e ab ove, it is evident that the inquiry/conte mpt proce edings should be initiated by th e court in excepti onal circumstances where th e court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberate ly to h ave some beneficial order from the cour t. T here must be grounds of a nature higher than m ere surmise or suspicion for initiat ing such proceedin gs. There must be distinc t evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion c an not bri ng home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine as on facts, wh ether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inqu ire into the offence whic h appears to ha ve been committed.” 77 78. It is clear through from a reading of t he afores aid judgments that there should be some thin g deliberate - a statement should be made de libera tely and consciously which is fo und to be false as a result of comparing it with unimpea ch able evidence, documentary or otherwise. 79. It is true that an af fidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Se ctio n 191 of the IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. But the matter doe s not rest here. Before initiating the proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whet he r it wo uld be expedient in the interest of jus tice to sanction such prosecution. What the cour ts hav e to see at this stage is whethe r there is evidenc e in support of the alle gations made b y the Union of India (respondent herein) to justify the initiation of proce edings against the writ petitioners, mo re p articularly, the writ petitioner no.1 her ein w ho h ad filed the affidavit on behalf of himself and th e other writ petitioners and not wheth er the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. However, th is does not mean that the court should not pri ma f acie be of the opinion that there are suf fic ient a nd reasonable grounds for settin g the machinery of criminal law in motion against the ac cu sed. As noted above, the Court has further to see that the false statemen t was deliberate and 78 conscious and the conv iction is reasonably probable or likely. In other words, before sanctioning the pr osecution there mu st be a prima facie case of a falsehoo d on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that th ere is reasonable foundation for the charge. ( see S.P. Kohli v . High Court of Punjab & Hary ana , AIR 1978 SC 1753) 80 . This Court, in the case of Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Che nn ai v . Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another , reported in (2011) 5 S CC 496, has held as under : “15. Giving false evi denc e by filing false affidavit is an evil wh ich m ust be effectively curbed with a str ong hand. Prosecut ion should be ordered when it is consi de red expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinqu en t, but th ere must be a prima facie case of "deli bera te falsehood" on a matter of substance an d t he cou rt should be satisfied that ther e is a reasonable foundation for the cha rge. 16. In a s er ies of decisions, this Court held that the enquiry/contempt pr oc eedings s hould be initiated by the court in exce ptio nal circumstances where the court is of t he opinio n that perjury has been committe d by a party delib erately to have some b eneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than me re surmise or suspicion for initiating such procee ding s. There must be distinct evidence of the co m m issi on of an offence by such a perso n as mere suspicio n cannot bring home th e charge of maki ng false statement, more so, the court has to determine as on fa ct s whether it is expedient in the interest of jus tice to enquire into offence which appears to ha ve bee n committed.” 79 81 . Section 340 o f the CrPC came up for the consideration before a three -Ju dge Bench of this Court in the case of Pri tish v . State of Maharashtra , (2002) 1 SCC 253. In Pritish (supra ), th is Court was called upon to consider, whether it is ma ndatory on the part of the court to make a preli mi nary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC before filing a complaint under Sect io n 195 of the CrPC and further, whether the court is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person again st w hom a complaint is filed before a Mag istrate for initia ting prose cution proceedings. This Cou rt took the view that an opportunity to the would be ac cused befo re the filing of the complaint was not mand atory, and observed that the preliminary inquiry wa s i tself not mandatory. The Court observe d thus : “9. Readi ng of the sub -section makes it clear t ha t the hub of this provision is formation of an opin io n by the court (before which proceedings were to be h eld) t hat it is expedient in the interest of justic e t hat an inquiry should be made into an offence which appe ars to ha ve been committed. In order t o form such opinion the court is empowered to hold a pr eliminary inquiry. It is not peremptory that such pre limina ry inquiry should be held. Even without such pre limina ry inquiry the court can form su ch an opinion when it appea rs to the court that an offen ce has been committed in relation to a proceeding in th at court . It is important to notice that even when th e cour t forms such an opinion it is not mandatory t hat the c ourt should make a complaint. Th is subsection has conferred a power on the court to do s o. It does not mean that the court should, as a matte r of course, make a complaint. But once the court decid es to do so, then the court should make a finding t o t he eff ect that on the fact situation i t 80 is expedient in the inter est of justice that the offen ce should further be probed into. If the court finds it necessary to conduct a preliminary inquiry to reach such a finding it is always open to the court to do so , thou gh absence of any such prelimina ry inquiry would not vitiat e a finding reached by the co ur t regarding its opinion . It should again be remembe re d that the preliminary inquiry contemplated in the su b-sect ion is not for finding whether any particular pe rson i s guilty or not. Far from that, the purpose of prel iminary inquiry, even if the court op ts to conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expe di ent in the interest of justice to inquire into the of fence which appears to have been committed. 10. “In quiry” is defined in Section 2(g) of t he Code as “every i nquiry, o ther than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court”. It refers to the pre -trial inquiry, and in the present context it mean s the inquiry to be conducted by the Magistra te. Once the court which forms an opinion , whether it is aft er conduc ting the preliminary inquiry or not, that it is expedient in the interest of justi ce that an i nquiry should be made into any offence the said court has to make a complaint in writing to t he M agist rate of the First Class concerne d. As the offences involved are all falling within the p ur view of “warrant case” [as defined in Section 2(x)] of the Code the Magistrate concerned has to follow the proce dure prescribed in Chapter XIX of the Code. I n t his co ntext we may point out that Sect ion 343 of the Code specifie s that the Magistrate to who m the complaint is made under Section 340 shall procee d to deal wi th the case as if it were instituted on a p olice report. That being the position, the Magistr ate on re ceiving the complaint shall proc eed under Section 2 38 to Sec tion 243 of the Code. 11. Sec tion 238 of the Code says that the Magistrate shall at the outse t satisfy himself that copies of all the re levan t documents have been supplied to the accused . S ection 239 enjoins on the Magistrate t o consider the comp laint and the documents sent with it. H e may also make such examination of the 81 accused, as he thinks ne cessary. Then the Magistrate has to hear bo th th e prosecution and the accused to consider whe the r the allegations against the accused are groundless. If he finds the allegations to be ground le ss he has to discharge the accused at that stage by re cording hi s reasons thereof. Section 240 of the Code says that if the Magistrate is of opinion, in the afo resaid inquiry, that there is ground f or presuming that t he accuse d has committed the offence he has to frame a charge in writing against the accuse d. Such char ge shall then be read and explained to the accus ed and he shall be asked whether he pleads gu ilt y of t he offence charged or not. If he pleads not guilty then the Magistrate has to proceed to conduct the trial. Until then the inquiry continues b ef ore the Ma gistrate. 12. Thus, the person against who m the complaint is made has a legal right to be he ard w heth er he should be tried for the of fence or not, but s uch a leg al right is envisaged only w he n the Magistrate calls the accused to appear before hi m . The per son concerned has then the right to partici pate in the pre -trial inquiry envisaged in Section 23 9 of t he Code. It is open to him to sa tisfy the Magistrat e that th e allegations against him ar e groundless and that he is entitled to be discharged. 13. The sc heme delineated above would clearly show th at th ere is no statutory requirement to afford an opp ortuni ty of hearing to the persons aga inst whom that cour t might f ile a complaint before the M ag istrate for initiating prosecution proceedings . Lear ne d counsel for the appellant contended that even if th ere i s no specific statutory provision for affordi ng such a n opportunity during the prelimi nary inquiry stage, the fact that an appeal is provided in Section 341 of the Code, to any person aggrieved by the order, is indicative of his right to participate i n suc h preliminary inquiry. 14. Section 341 of th e C ode co nfers a power on the party on wh ose application the court ha s decided or not decided to ma ke a complaint, as well as the party 82 against whom it is decided to make such complaint, to file an appeal t o the court to which the former court is subordina te. But t he mere fact that such an appeal is provided, it is not a pr emise for concluding that th e court is under a legal obligation to afford an oppor tu nity (to t he persons against whom the complaint would be m ade) to be heard prior to making the complain t. There are other provisions in the Code for reaching concl usions wh ether a person should be arr ay ed as accused in criminal proceedings or not, but in m ost of tho se proceedings there is no legal obligation cast on the court or the authorities concerned, t o a fford an opportunity of hearing to the would -be accused. In any ev ent the appellant has alread y availed of the opportunity of the provisions of Sect io n 341 of t he Code by filing the appeal before the Hig h Cou rt as stated earlier. x x x x 18. We a re unable to agree with the said view of the learned Single Judge as the same was taken under the impression that a decision to order inquiry into the of fence itse lf would prima facie amount to holding him, if n ot guilty, very near to a finding of his guil t. W e hav e pointed out earlier that the p urpose of conductin g preliminary inqu iry is not for that purpose at all. The would -be accused is not necessary for the cou rt to decide the question of expediency in the i nterest of justice that an inquiry should be hel d. We have come across decisions of so me other High Court s which held the v iew that the person s against whom proceedings were instituted have no suc h right to participate in the preliminary inquiry (vide M.Mu thuswamy v. Special Police Establishment [198 5 Cri LJ 420 (Mad)]).” (emphasis supplied ) 82 . In M.S. Sher iff and Another v . State of Madras and Others , AIR 1954 SC 397, a Constitution Bench of this Court said th at no expre ssion on the guilt or innocence of persons 83 should be made by court while passing an orde r under Section 340 of Cr PC. An exercise at that st age is not for finding whethe r any off en ce was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confi ne d to see wh ether the court could then decide on the ma terials available that the matter requi res inqu iry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it in qu ired into. This decision of the Constitution Bench has also be en followed i n Pritish (supra ) observing that the court, when decide s to make a complaint under Section 340, is not to record finding of guil t or innocence of person against whom complaint is to be made bef or e a Magistr ate. 83 . We may also refer and repl y upon the decision of this Court in the c ase of Aari sh Asgar Qureshi v . Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and anothe r, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 172 , wher ei n this Court discussed and e xplained the necessary requirement s for the purp ose of initiation of proceeding unde r Secti on 340 read with Section 195(1)( b) of the CrPC . This Court laid much emphasis on two words namely “deliberate ” and “intentional ”. This Co urt talked about t he re quirement of impeachable evidence for t he purpose of initiation of proceedings. In other words, this Court took the view that a state men t sho uld be made deliberately and con sciously and the sa me should be found to be false as a re su lt of comparing it with u nimpeachable evidenc e, 84 documentary or otherwise. W e quote the relevant observations ma de b y t his Court: - “10. It is clear therefore from a reading of these judgments that there should be som ething deliberate - a statement should be made deliberately and consciously which is found to be false as a result o f comparing it with unimpeachable ev idence, documentary or otherwise . In the fact s o f the present case, it is clear that the statement made in the anticipatory bail application c an not be tested against unimpeachable evidence as evidence has n ot yet been le d. Moreover, the report dated 12.11. 2011 be ing a report, which is in the nature o f a preliminary investigation report by the investigating o fficer filed only two days after the F .I.R. is lodged, can in no circumstances be regarded as unimpeac ha ble evidence contrary to the statements that hav e been made in the anticipatory bail applicat ion . … ” (emphasis supplied) 84 . However, in the sub sequent decision in the case of Sharad Pawar v . Jagmohan Dalmiya , (2010) 15 SCC 290, while dealing wi th a similar qu estion as above, a thre e-Judge Bench of th is Court went on to observe as follows : “7. Having heard the learned Senior Co unsel for both side s and after perusal of the record, we ar e of the considered view that before giving a direction to f ile complaint against Defendants 1 t o 6, it was nece ssary for the learned Single Judge to conduct a preliminary enq uiry as contemplated u nder Section 340 C rPC and also to afford an opportunity o f being heard to the defendants, which was admittedly not don e. 8. We, ther efore, in the interest of justice, all ow th ese appeals, set aside the impugned orde r o f the High Cour t passed in the applic ation filed by Res pondent 1 - plaintiff under Section 340 C rP C and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge to decid e the applicati on under Section 340 C rPC afresh in ac corda nce with law, 85 and after affording reason abl e opportunity o f being heard to the d efendants, against whom the learned Single Judge ordered en quiry.” 85 . Later, the judgment in Pritish (supra ) came to be relied upon by a two Judges Bench of this Court i n Ama rsang Nathaji (supra ). While dealing wit h t he propriety of the procedure adopted by the court maki ng a complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC , the Bench in Amarsang Nathaji observed as follows: “7. In the process of formation of opin ion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of just ice that an inquir y should be made into, the requirement s hould only be to have a prima facie sat is faction of the offence which appears to have been committed . It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inqui ry th ough it is not mandatory. In case, the c our t is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, t hat it appears to the court that an off en ce as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been committed , the court may dispense with the pr eliminary inquiry . Eve n after forming an opinion as to the off enc e w hich appears to have been committe d also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be fi le d as a matter of course. (See Pritish v. State of Maharasht ra [Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253 ) 86. The conflict between the two decisions of this Court of equal strength, i.e. Pritish (supra ) and Sharad Pawar (supra ), was taken notice of by this Court in the case of the State of Punjab v . Jasb ir Singh , (2020) 12 SCC 96 . A Bench of two Judg es of t his Court ultim ately thought fit to refer the qu estion to a Larger Bench. The Court o bserved as under : 86 “14. In any event, given that the de ci sion of the three -Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra ) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench i n Pritish (supra) regarding the necessit y of a preliminary inqui ry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court i n Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it ne cessary that the prese nt matter be placed befo re a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions: 14.1 (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity o f he aring to the would -be accused before a co mpl aint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court ? 14 .2 (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry ?” 87. It appears that the reference on the aforesaid two questions to a larger Be nch is still pending. 88. However, we do no t i ntend to dwell upon any further in the afore said context i.e. whether it would be expedient in the interests of justice to proceed against the writ petitioners for perju ry. We are saying so as we do not want to precipitate this issue any further. We ha ve said in s o many words that this is a very serious matter as it relates directly to the secu rit y of the nation. 89. In the aforesaid context, we have something else in mind. We propose to look into Section 2 11 of the IPC. Section 211 of 87 th e IPC is extr ac ted hereunder: - “Section 211 . False charge of offence made with intent to injure. — Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person w ith ha vin g committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or ch arge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with bot h; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of eit her description for a term which may ex tend t o s even years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” 90. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 211 , I.P.C . are that the complaint must hav e f als ely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant, at the time of giving th e complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an int ent ion to cause injury to a person. 91. Th e CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a "charge" of an offence or what amounts to the "institution of criminal proceedings". But, in our opinion, a fal se "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but i n its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it 88 or to take any steps in regard to it, suc h as giving informa tio n of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion. The nature of both expres sions, and the difference betw een them ha s be en explained in lucid terms in the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the c as e of Karim Buksh v. Queen Emp , 17 C. 574. It points out that there may be a charge which does not amount t o t he institution of criminal proceedings "and there may be criminal proceedings which do not nec es sarily involve a charge" of any offence. As an illustration of the former it points out that a charge made to th e Judge of a Civil Court or to publi c officer s o f other kinds, in order to obtain sanction to prosecute may well be a charge "but is not the i ns titution of criminal proceedings". It further points out that an aggrieved person may seek to put the criminal l aw in motion either by making a char ge or in the languag e of the Code giving information to the Police (Section 154 CrPC ) "or he may" lay a charge, or a s the Code calls it, a complaint (Section 19 0 CrPC ) before a Magistrate ”. 92. We are referring to Section 211 of the IPC as above keeping in mi nd the fact that the first information repor ts l odged by the writ petitioners at the different police stations we re investigated and at the en d of the investigation , the investigating agen cy 89 reached to the conclusion that the police force had no role to pl ay, rather Naxals wer e responsible for the ma ssa cre. Prim a facie , it could be said that false information was given by the first informants to the police as regards the alleged ma ssacre by the police force. 93. The essential to be satiated in or der to attr act the offence under Section 211 of the IPC was eluci dated by this Court in in Santokh Sin gh & Ors. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr ., (1973) 2 SCC 406 . The r elevant paragraph is extracted hereinunder: “10. … This section as its marginal note indicates rende rs punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offen ce under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause to be insti tuted any criminal proceeding against a perso n w ith intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting o r causing to institute false criminal proceed ing s assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings resu lt. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceed ing against any person. So that part of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expressio n “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving fa lse evidence as a prosecution witness ag ainst an accused person during the course of a c riminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to t he original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when speaking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge fram ed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read along with the expression “ins titution of criminal 90 proceeding”. Both th ese expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be underst ood to have been used in their cognate sense. Th ey get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a tec hnical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be emb odied either in a complaint or in a rep ort of a cognizable offence to the police officer or an officer having au thority over the person against whom the alle gat ions are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charge” should be made with the inten tion and object of setting criminal law i n motion. … ”. 94. Thus, a s explained by th is Court in Santokh Si ngh v. Izhar Hussain (supra) , the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him in jur y or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowin g that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume fals e charge but fal se charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression “fals el y charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against a n accused person during the cour se of a crimi nal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seekin g to put in motion 91 the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by makin g deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institutio n of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They g et as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technic al sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a perso n in authority or to someone wh o is in a posi tio n to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be’ embodi ed either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having autho rity over the person against whom the allegat ion s are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intent io n and object of setting criminal law in motion. 95. Thus, we leave it to th e State of Chhatti sgarh/ CBI (Central Bureau of Investigatio n) to take appro priate steps in accordance with law as discus sed above in reference to the assertions made in the interim application . We clarify that it shall not be limited only to the offence under Section 211 of the I PC . A case o f criminal conspiracy or any other off ence under the IPC may also 92 surface . We may n ot be understood of having expressed an y final opinion on such action/proceedings . We lea ve it to the better discretion of the State of Chhatti sgarh/ CBI to act accordingly keeping in m ind the se riousness of the ent ire issue. Thus , the relief prayed for in terms of Para 67(b) hereinabove , of the subject interlocutory application is hereby granted. 96. We have not remained obli vious of Section 195 CrPC while discussing th e afo resaid . We m ake it clear th at havi ng regard to the fa cts of the present case the bar of Section 195 CrPC would not apply if ultimately the State of Chhatti sgarh/ CBI deci des to take appropriate action in accordance wit h law as discusse d above. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Co urt in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur , reported in AIR 1967 SC 528 , wherein this Court observed as under : “10. In the interpretation of this cla use (b) of sub - sect ion (1) of Section 195, considerable em phasis has bee n laid before us on th e expression “i n, or in relation to”, and it has been urged that the use of the expression “in relation to” very considerably widens the scope of this section and makes it applicabl e t o cases where there can even in futu re be a procee ding in any court in r elation to whic h the off ence under Section 211 IPC, may be alleged to have been committed. A proper interpretation of this provision req uires that each ingredient in it be separatel y examined. This provision bars taking of cognizance if all the following c ircumstances ex is t viz. (1) that the offence in respect of which the case is brought falls under Section 211 IPC; (2) that there should be a proceeding in any cou rt; and (3) that th e a llegation 93 should be that the offence under Section 211 was committed in, or in relation to, such a proceeding. Unless all the three ingredients exist, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) against taking cognizance by the Magistrate, except on a complaint in wri ting of a court, will not come into operation. In the present case also, therefore, we ha ve to s ee whether all these three ingredients were in existence at the time when the Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh proceeded to take cognizan ce of the charge un der Section 211 IPC against the appella nt. 11. There is, of course, no doub t that in the c om plaint before the Magistrate a charge under Section 211 IPC, against the appellant was included, so that the first ingr edient clearly existed. The question on which th e decision in the present cases hing es is whether it can be held that an y proceeding in any cour t existed when that Magistrate took cognizance. If any proceeding in any court existed and the offence under Sec tion 21 1 IPC, in the complaint filed before h im w as alleged to have been committed i n such a proce eding, or in relation to any such pro ce eding, the Magistrate would have been barred from taking cognizance of the offence. On the other hand, if there was no proceed ing in any court at all in which, or i n r elation to which, the offence under Section 211 co uld have been alleged to have been co mm itted, this provision barring cognizance would not be attracted at all. 12. In this case, as we have already indicated when en umerating the facts, the complaint of whi ch cognizance was taken by the Judic ial Magistrate at Chandigarh was fil ed on April 11, 1959 and at that stage, the only proceeding that was going on was investigation by the police on the basis of the First Informa tion Report lodged by the appellant be for e the Inspector -General of Police on December 10, 1958. There is no ment ion at all that there wa s, at that stage, any proceeding in any court in respect of that FIR When examining the question whether there i s any p roceeding in any court, there are thre e s ituations that can be envisaged. One is that there may be no proceeding in any court at all. The second is that a proceeding in a court may actually be pending at the point of time when cognizance is sought t o be taken of the offence under Section 211 I PC. The third is that, though there 94 may be no proceed ing pending in any cou rt in which, or in relat ion, to which the offence under Section 211 IPC could have been committed, there may have been a proceeding whic h had already concluded and the offence under Se ction 211 may be alleged to have bee n committed in , or in relation to, t hat proceeding. It seems to us that in both the latter two circumstances envisaged above, the bar to taking cognizance under Section 195 (1)(b) would come into operation. If there be a proceeding actually pending in any c ourt and the o ffence under Section 2 11 IPC is alleg ed to hav e been committed in relation to that proceeding, Section 195(1)(b) would clearly apply. Even if there be a case where there was, at one stage, a proceeding i n a ny Court which may have concluded by the time the question of applying t he provisions o f Section 195(1) (b) arises, the bar under that provision would apply if it is alleged that the offence under Section 211 IPC, was committed in relation to that procee din g. The fact that the proceeding had concluded woul d be immaterial becaus e Section 195(1 )(b) does not re quire that the proceeding in any court must actually be pending at the time applying this bar arises. ” 97. With the aforesaid , we dispose of this I nt erlocutory Application. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..J. (A.M . KHANWILKAR) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..J. (J.B. PARDIW ALA) NEW DELHI ; JULY 14 , 2022