Challenge quashing of FIR: Social activist to UT

Staying further investigation in the FIR,a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain had asked the Registrar Vigilance to hold a fact-finding enquiry. Based on a “compromise” entered between Chand and former Additional Advocate General (AAG) Rupinder Singh Khosla,the FIR was cancelled/ quashed.

Goswami had also moved an application requesting intervention in the case but the same was not entertained by the division bench. Goswami has now requested the Administration to challenge the order before the Apex Court.

“It was not correct for the High Court to intervene in a criminal matter by way of a suo-motu Public Interest Litigation within two days of registration of an FIR,and stay lawful investigation into the matter – especially when High Court advocates (who are considered officers of the Court) were themselves allegedly involved in criminal acts within the High Court premises and were thereafter shouting slogans and protesting within the High Court premises,” reads the letter written by Goswami.

Giving grounds to challenge the order,Goswami has said that “no such compelling circumstances existed to first stay the investigation and thereafter assign it to the Registrar of the High Court. Such an order is bad in law and not in public interest”.

Raising a question mark over the “compromise” struck,he has submitted,“It is a well established law that the agreement of witnesses/ informant/ victim has to be out of their free will/ consent and not under duress and/ or pressure and/ or under adverse circumstances which are not a part of a lawful procedure. In the present matter,the constable was already under suspension,severely injured,under extreme pressure from all quarters and thereafter made to appear before the Registrar-Vigilance of the High Court. His free will is only presumptive”.

Moreover,Goswami has raised the issue that at the time of quashing of the FIR,Ramesh Chand went unrepresented in the High Court. There was no lawyer to represent his case before the division bench.

“The order mentions that the Registrar-Vigilance met both the parties,i.e Ramesh Chand,Head Constable and Rupinder Khosla,Advocate. This cannot be said to be an inquiry as in the unfortunate criminal act,the number of people involved were seventeen (or so) and not two. There were also many other witnesses who could throw light on the actual happening relating to the unfortunate happenings,” reads the application.

Goswami has also said that the offences (including rioting) allegedly committed by the lawyers are “non compoundable offences” against the state and as such no compromise can be entered into.