LI Network
Published on: November 22, 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court declined to entertain an appeal by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) contesting a new FIR filed in 2020 by the Chhattisgarh police.
The FIR aimed to investigate claims of a broader political conspiracy behind the 2013 Maoist attack in Bastar that resulted in the deaths of several senior Congress leaders.
The bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, presided over the matter.
The NIA’s petition challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s March 2, 2022 order, which refused to quash the second FIR or transfer it to the NIA for further investigation.
The NIA had initially approached a Special NIA Court in Chhattisgarh with a plea for quashing/transfer, but the request was denied.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued on behalf of the NIA, emphasizing that the 2013 incident, resulting in the death of about 28 people and injuries to 33 others by Naxalites, had already prompted a local police FIR.
Due to the use of explosives in the offense, it became a scheduled offense under the NIA Act. Raju informed the bench that the NIA was assigned the investigation of the Bastar ambush in 2013 by the Central Government.
However, in 2020, almost seven years later, the State police lodged a fresh FIR related to the same incident, alleging a larger conspiracy based on information from a new informant.
Raju argued that the allegation of a ‘larger conspiracy’ is connected to the offense and should be investigated by the NIA under Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Following the second FIR in 2020, NIA had written to the Special Judge, requesting the local police to halt their investigation and hand over the documents in accordance with Section 8 of the NIA Act.
In contrast, the complainant’s counsel contended that the second FIR did not pertain to a “connected offense.” He argued that the first FIR solely focused on the attack on the convoy, while the second FIR was based on the “deliberate lack of security,” a facet not examined in the initial FIR. Referring to a Supreme Court three-judge bench judgment, he asserted that in cases of a larger conspiracy, a second FIR could be considered.
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, accused the NIA of hindering the investigation, stating, “NIA is unwilling to investigate, that’s why we say let CBI…This is a larger issue of national interest…you want to stall the investigation from the state, and you want the papers in your possession. Conspiracy by itself is a standalone offense. And this could be a larger conspiracy. This is one incident.”
Ultimately, the bench decided not to interfere in the matter.
In May 2013, Maoist insurgents attacked a convoy of Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh, resulting in the death of at least 27 people, including the party’s top state leaders. Congress later alleged that the attack, which occurred during the BJP’s governance of the state, was a political conspiracy. The State police filed the FIR based on a complaint by the son of a deceased Congress leader.
Case Title: National Investigation Agency New Delhi v The State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors SLP(Crl) No. 7024/2022
