The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday directed the SIT investigating the Palampur businessman case to add IPC sections pertaining to extortion and intentionally threatening or inducing someone to give up property against the accused. It also pulled up the DGP.
In his complaint, the businessman, Nishant Sharma, had alleged threat to him, his family and property. He had also questioned the role of the then DGP Sanjay Kundu, who had allegedly made calls to him, asking him to come to Shimla.
Sharma maintained that the former DGP was interfering in a property dispute.
Serious allegations of extortion, attempt to extort and land grabbing have not been investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and other officers prior to constitution of SIT and both have failed to add Sections 384 to 387 in the FIR registered on November 16, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Dua Rewal said.
The Bench observed that several lapses indicated in the reports filed by sitting DGP Atul Verma submitted in July 2024 show that the investigation by the SIT and its predecessor investigation officers has been tardy and important angles have not been investigated.
The high court ordered the SIT to add Sections 384 to 387 to the FIR, investigate all aspects and areas in the report filed by the DGP, add a police officer of Himachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion as member of the SIT by the state government and issue notification in this regard within three days.
The SIT report indicates that instead of investigating holistically all aspects of the matter, including the extortion angle, it seemed to be determined to disprove the alleged attack on the complainant on October 27 at McLeodganj, the court said.
The court observed that the non-seizure of mobile phones, laptops and other potentially crucial sources of digital evidence is also a serious lapse. It noted that the SIT in its reports had stated that it will go into the financial dispute between the two parties and the allegations of involvement and misuse of connection of one party with politicians and bureaucrats but does not seem to have gone into it.
“In our opinion, the defence of the actions of the SIT in the written submissions given by the Advocate General does not justify reaching a conclusion that the SIT’s investigation has been comprehensive,” the court said.
The court made it clear that it has not expressed any view on the truth or veracity of the allegations made by the parties involved in the said FIRs and they shall all be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
It listed the next hearing on November 5 for filing the status report by the DGP and the SIT.
The former DGP had also filed a case of defamation against Sharma for harming his reputation and attempting to malign his image.
