[Honey Trap Scandal] 'No Need To Transfer Case To CBI', MP HC Directs SIT To Take Appropriate Steps In Accordance With Law [Read Order]

A Division Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla said,

"This Court has carefully gone through the entire cases referred by learned counsel for the parties heard learned counsel for the parties at length and no material was brought before this Court on the basis of which it could have been held that the investigation has not been done properly by the State of Madhya Pradesh. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation."

The Background of the case

The petitioner, a social worker, had filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation in respect of a crime, which took place in the State of Madhya Pradesh allegedly relating to some sex scandal (infamously known as 'Honey Trap Scandal').

The petitioner's contention was that on 17.09.2019, one Harbhajan Singh, Superintending Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Indore filed a complaint before the police authorities alleging that he was being blackmailed and a 'Honey Trap' gang is working in the State of Madhya Pradesh which is involved in blackmailing high profiles politicians, bureaucrats, businessman etc.

It was further stated that based upon the complaint of Mr. Harbhajan Singh dated 17.09.2019, Madhya Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad and Crime Branch of the State unearthed the 'Honey Trap' Racket and on 19.09.2019, two women were arrested.

Later on, total of six arrests were made by the police and the police had seized large number of electronic gadgets including spy-cameras, laptops, mobile phones etc.

The police had also allegedly recovered videos and audiotapes relating to conversation with leaders, bureaucrats, businessman etc.

The petitioner's contention was that offence in respect of crime in question not only relates to blackmailing but it relates to money laundering and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as other crimes also.

It was further stated that the influential people are involved in the matter, and therefore, the case should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Arguments put forth by the respondents/state

The respondents/state submitted before the court that after registering the criminal case in this Scandal, investigation was carried out, which was monitored by this Court and a charge-sheet has been filed against seven accused persons, who have been arrested so far and the case is still being investigated under the provision of Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The respondents also stated that during the course of investigation heavy cash amount was recovered from the possession of accused persons namely Arti Dayal and Shweta Vijay Jain and the information was forwarded to the Income Tax Department as well as to the Enforcement Directorate.

The respondents submitted that the electronic gadgets, seized in the matter, have been forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for forensic analysis and a report is awaited from CFSL, Hyderabad.

The respondents also filed their replies to the Interlocutory Applications preferred in the matter by the intervenor and their contention was that they have carried out an investigation in a most impartial manner and they shall be taking further steps in the matter after the CFSL report is received.

The respondents further stated that the entire investigation was monitored by this Court from time to time and question of handing over the case to Central Bureau of Investigation does not arise.

It was also stated that after conducting an investigation, keeping in view the directions issued by this Court from time to time, charge-sheet has been filed and a progress report in a sealed cover furnishing all minute details has been submitted to this Court.

In nutshell, it was argued that the entire investigation was carried out during the pendency of the present writ petitions and charge-sheets have been filed in two and it has been stated that after receiving the report in respect of electronic gadgets and the material which has been sent to CFSL, Hyderabad, as investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is still in progress, the respondents shall be taking appropriate steps in accordance with law keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The question before the court

Thus, the issue before the Court was whether in light of the progress report, which had been submitted to this Court, the investigation of the case deserves to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation or not?

The Court's observation

The court was of the view that this Court itself monitored the investigation of 'Honey Trap Scandal' and charge-sheets have already been filed. All minute details in respect of the investigation have also been furnished in the progress report by the SIT.

The court noted,

"The S.I.T. has also investigated into the allegations made by the accused persons / statements made by the accused persons in order to find out whether any favour has been done by any Government Agency of the Department on the basis of the so called sex scandal."

The court further observed that the S.I.T. has not received any material on the basis of which it can be held that the accused persons were helped by the Department of the Government in granting them contract or any other kind of favour.

This Court perused the entire material/evidence collected by the S.I.T. in camera proceedings and was of the considered opinion that a fair and proper investigation has been carried out in the matter.

After referring to various Judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation "has to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously in exceptional situation and an order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police."

Most importantly, while referring to the Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu v/s The State of U.P. & Others (2008) 2 SCC 409, the High Court in the present matter opined that "a C.B.I. inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have made some allegation."

In the present case, the court observed, a fair and impartial investigation has been carried out by the Madhya Pradesh Police.

The bench said that the Court has seen the entire material while holding the proceedings in camera and did not find any reason for transferring the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation on any count.

The bench further said,

"In the present case, no request of any kind was made by the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The State of Madhya Pradesh had carried out the investigation in a fair and impartial manner keeping in view the provisions as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, no case is made out for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter."

Directions given by the Bench

The court in its order directed,

"The S.I.T., as the investigation is going on under Section 178(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law the moment a report is received from CFSL, Hyderabad and shall also submit a progress report to the Principal Registrar of this Court in respect of further action taken in the matter."

The respondents / State were also directed to take all steps as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for ensuring the arrest of other accused persons who are absconding and shall also submit a progress report in respect of the steps taken to arrest the remaining persons who are accused in the criminal cases and shall make all possible endeavour to conclude the investigation under Section 178(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stood disposed of. The order passed by the Court in the present case will govern the connected writ petitions also, and therefore, the connected writ petition also stood disposed of

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]