JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. This writ petition had already been withdrawn by the petitioners on 11.06.2024 with liberty to file afresh with better particulars. On that date it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in this matter, CBI investigation was ordered, but the CBI had not been made a party, the writ petition shall be filed after making CBI as a party with better particulars. 2. Now, an application has been filed by the CBI with the averments therein that Shri Prakash Chandra Tamta be directed to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.07.2023, passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3989 of 2020 (“the SLP”). 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In fact, in the instant petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.174 of 2020, under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar and also seeking directions against the erring police officers. According to the FIR No.174 of 2020, on 28.07.2020, police intercepted petitioner no.1 and recovered 97.70 Grams Charas from him. 5. It has been the case of the petitioners that it is a case of false implication; the police entered into a Dhaba runs by petitioner no.1, assaulted one of the workers Vikram and grabbed him. They remained in the Dhaba from 07:17 p.m. for about 08 minutes. The petitioner no.1 was standing outside the Dhaba. The police party grabbed him and took him away in a car. This was captured in various CCTVs installed in the Dhaba. On 07.08.2020, this Court has issued the following directions and the matter was listed on 19.08.2020:- “10. This matter has to be inquired and monitored by this Court. It cannot be left to be further lost with time. Thus, the Court issues the following directions: 10.1. The Court requests S.P. CBI, Dehradun to conduct a preliminary inquiry in this matter within a week. 10.2. Entire paper-book alongwith a copy of the pendrive be sent to S.P., CBI, Dehradun, via both e-mail and hardcopy by tomorrow evening. For the same, learned counsel for the CBI would provide the e-mail id of S.P., CBI, Dehradun and their superior officers. 10.3. 10.2. Entire paper-book alongwith a copy of the pendrive be sent to S.P., CBI, Dehradun, via both e-mail and hardcopy by tomorrow evening. For the same, learned counsel for the CBI would provide the e-mail id of S.P., CBI, Dehradun and their superior officers. 10.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall also provide a soft copy of entire paper book to the Registry during the course of the day, as per the Registry’s directions. 10.4. This Court expects and requests CBI to maintain a timeline and submit the preliminary inquiry report to this Court on or before 18.08.2020. 11. List this matter to consider the preliminary inquiry report of the CBI on 19.08.2020 at 10:15 AM. 12. Also, issue notices to respondent nos.5 to 8. Counter affidavit(s) may be filed by the State and respondent nos.5 to 8, within four weeks from today. 13. List this matter for considering the counter affidavits and other future course of action on 01.09.2020 at 10:15 AM. 14. Learned counsel for CBI requests that he may also be provided a copy of the entire paper book. Let petitioner do so during course of the day. 15. The Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is also requested to provide protection to the petitioners and the witnesses at the said Dhaba under the Witnesses Protection Scheme. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar alongwith a copy of the paper book through email immediately.” 6. Pursuant to the directions dated 07.08.2020, SP CBI concerned had submitted a report, which the CBI had concluded, which this Court has reproduced in its order dated 19.08.2020 as follows:- “8. CBI in its report has concluded as hereunder; “1. 1.1 That the enquiry has revealed commission of the offences under Sections 120-B IPC read with 166, 167, 193, 201, 211, 220, 323, 342, 348 and 465 IPC by Police Officials namely S/Sri Prakash Chandra Tamta, Sub-Inspector, Tribhuwan Singh, Chandan Singh Bisht, Harish Giri, all constables of Police Chowki Beria Daulat and S/Sri Parvez Ahmad and Rajwant Singh, both Special Police Officers. 1.2 That in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation of FIR No.174 of 2020 of Kelakhera Police Station to any agency deemed appropriate …………………………………………… …………….……………………………………………………………………......... 12. 1.2 That in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation of FIR No.174 of 2020 of Kelakhera Police Station to any agency deemed appropriate …………………………………………… …………….……………………………………………………………………......... 12. On behalf of the CBI, learned counsel would submit that CBI may investigate the matter against Police Officers and conclude the investigation within four months because it requires some data recovery from the Forensic Labs.” 7. Having considered the matter on 19.08.2020, this Court passed the following order:- “13. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, the Court issues the following directions; 13.1. CBI, Dehradun is requested to register an F.I.R. and investigate the case against erring Police Officals as mentioned at page 19, para 1.1 of the report of SP CBI SPE, Dehradun, dated 17.08.2020, in accordance with Law. 13.2. The further investigation in FIR No.174 of 2020, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing in the matter, which is already fixed for 01.09.2020. 13.3. The Court requests the learned Magistrate, who granted remand of petitioner no.1 on 29.07.2020 to furnish the following information on or before 01.09.2020 for consideration of this Court. The following information shall be submitted through the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar alongwith the comment of the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on it. (A copy of entire remand file and the file of bail application of petitioner no. 1 be also forwarded.) 13.3.1. Whether on 29.07.2020, the petitioner no.1 raised an issue at the time of remand that he has been falsely implicated by the Police Officers? Did the petitioner no.1 give any application to that effect on that date? 13.3.2. Is not an offence for which the petitioner no.1 was accused in FIR No.174 of 2020, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar of having possessed 97.70 gram charas, bailable in view of Section 20 (b) (ii) (A) r/w Section 37 of the Act and Section 4 of the Code. If so, why the petitioner no.1 was not required to furnish bonds with or without sureties for his release on bail immediately after remand without waiting for any formal application for bail by him. 13.3.3. Did the petitioner no. 1 give any application at the time of hearing of remand on 29.07.2020 that he be medically examined alleging that he was beaten by Police? 13.3.3. Did the petitioner no. 1 give any application at the time of hearing of remand on 29.07.2020 that he be medically examined alleging that he was beaten by Police? If yes, what action was taken by the Magistrate considering remand?” 8. It is the order dated 19.08.2020, passed by this Court passed in the writ petition, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP. One of the grounds taken in the SLP was that the State was not heard in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 27.02.2024, pleased to pass the following order in the SLP:- “The petitioner before this Court is challenging the order dated 19.08.2020 which is an interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1197/2020 where inter alia certain directions were given to the CBI, Dehradun including one to register an FIR. There are various objections which have been raised before this Court including that the CBI to register an FIR. It has also been contended that normally CBI does not register FIR immediately, but it is only done after a preliminary inquiry. The State Counsel also submitted that the State was not heard on this matter. There are other objections as well. All the same, since the High Court is seized with the matter and as the order dated 19.08.2020 itself states that the matter was to be listed in September, 2020, we would not like to state anything further except that as far as the direction for CBI is concerned, we only state that the part of the order with regard to CBI investigation shall remain in abeyance and will only be subject to the hearing of the State Counsel on that aspect. We make it absolutely clear that we say nothing on the merit of the case but our observations are only based on the statement here that State Counsel was not heard. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of. Registry is directed to apprise the Registrar General, Uttarakhand High Court so that the matter is placed before the concerned court. Interim order dated 04.09.2020 is hereby vacated.” 9. It is, thereafter, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh by making CBI as a party. It has never been done. Registry is directed to apprise the Registrar General, Uttarakhand High Court so that the matter is placed before the concerned court. Interim order dated 04.09.2020 is hereby vacated.” 9. It is, thereafter, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh by making CBI as a party. It has never been done. Hence, CBI has come up seeking directions to Prakash Chandra Tamta to comply with the directions dated 27.02.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Learned counsel for the CBI would submit that in Criminal Misc. Application for Necessary Direction 6398 of 2025 in the body of the application as well as in prayer, the name of Prakash Chandra Tamta has wrongly been included because he was a person, who filed SLP, in fact, it is submitted that it should be read as petitioners Anil Sharma and Vipin Sharma. He submits that pursuant to the order dated 07.08.2020, the CBI has conducted preliminary inquiry and pursuant to a subsequent order dated 19.08.2020 registered an FIR, as well. He submits that the investigation has been carried out, but since the writ petition has been withdrawn, therefore, CBI seeks directions. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP had ordered that, “ the part of the order with regard to CBI investigation shall remain in abeyance and will only be subject to the hearing of the State Counsel on that aspect ”. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he had very fairly given the statement on 11.06.2024 that after making CBI as a party, the fresh petition shall be filed. He submits that thereafter, the petitioners have taken file from him and have told him that he is no more their counsel. 12. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that pursuant to the Court’s order dated 07.11.2025. He has received notices of the misc. application. Therefore, he is present today. He submits that the notices may be sent to the respondents, so that they may be heard on the misc. application. 13. The allegations in the instant case were against the police officers with regard to false implication, detention, etc. On 07.08.2020, this Court had requested SP CBI, Dehradun to conduct a preliminary inquiry. application. Therefore, he is present today. He submits that the notices may be sent to the respondents, so that they may be heard on the misc. application. 13. The allegations in the instant case were against the police officers with regard to false implication, detention, etc. On 07.08.2020, this Court had requested SP CBI, Dehradun to conduct a preliminary inquiry. SP CBI, Dehradun did conduct an inquiry and reported that, in fact, the preliminary inquiry revealed commission of offences under Sections 120-B IPC read with 166, 167, 193, 201, 211, 220, 323, 342, 348 and 465 IPC by police officials namely, Prakash Chanda Tamta, Sub-Inspector, Tribuwan Singh, Chandan Singh Bisht, Harish Gill of Police Chowki Beriya Daulat and Parvez Ahmed and Rajwant Singh, both Special Police Officers. 14. This Court, thereafter, on 19.08.2020, ordered for CBI investigation as the writ petition was still pending. As stated, the order dated 19.08.2020 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on multiple grounds. The State Counsel had also submitted that the State was not heard. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court kept the CBI investigation in abeyance till the State Counsel is heard in this matter. 15. Learned Counsel for the CBI would submit that, in fact, the FIR has been lodged by the CBI on 28.08.2020. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has only kept the CBI investigation in abeyance and it was subject to hearing of the State Counsel. It appears that the petitioners have not been fair to the process of law. They withdrew the writ petition with the liberty to file afresh by making CBI a party. But, they did not make CBI a party and learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have taken file from him, instructing him that he is no more their counsel. 17. The Court restrains to make any observation about the manner in which the petitioners are acted in the instant case. The fact remains that the petitioners have brought to the notice of the Court a case of police atrocities. In a rule of law such acts can never be encouraged. They need to be dealt with in accordance with statutory provisions. The fact remains that the petitioners have brought to the notice of the Court a case of police atrocities. In a rule of law such acts can never be encouraged. They need to be dealt with in accordance with statutory provisions. In fact, what is brought to the notice of the Court is that the police officers have infringed upon to the life and liberty of the petitioners, a right which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It needs protection. It cannot be left to be played by any individual. The Court had, in fact, taken note of the allegations made against the police officers. The allegations were levelled by the petitioners. The Court had ordered a preliminary inquiry by the CBI. The CBI has affirmed the allegations as levelled by the petitioners in their preliminary inquiry. Now the petitioners are not approaching the Court. Have they have been won over, threatened, intimidated, lured or coerced? This Court may not speculate on those aspects. But, the facts situation commands that in order to protect the rights of the petitioners, the matter must be proceeded further. This much is clear that the petitioners have not been fair to this Court. They did not keep their words, which were given to this Court on 11.06.2024. The CBI is not in a position of clarity. This Court has directed for CBI investigation and individual like the petitioners may not be permitted to stop this Court from discharging its Constitutional obligations. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that while recalling the order dated 11.06.2024, the CBI shall be made a party and the matter shall be heard further. In fact, on behalf of the State, it was argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they were not heard. The State shall also be heard. In the misc. application, instead of the name of the petitioners, the name of the respondent no.4, Prakash Chandra Tamta has been inadvertently written, as stated by the learned counsel for the CBI. Therefore, this will not make any difference. This Court may make order, accordingly. 19. Let Registry make CBI as respondent no.9, “Central Bureau of Investigation through SP CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun, Uttarakhand”. The CBI is already being represented. 20. Let issue notices to Government Advocate to appear and argue the case. Also issue notices to the private respondents. 21. Therefore, this will not make any difference. This Court may make order, accordingly. 19. Let Registry make CBI as respondent no.9, “Central Bureau of Investigation through SP CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun, Uttarakhand”. The CBI is already being represented. 20. Let issue notices to Government Advocate to appear and argue the case. Also issue notices to the private respondents. 21. In case, petitioners appear, they shall also be heard. But, if they do not appear, it will make no difference and the petition may not be dismissed under the facts and circumstances of the case for their non-appearance. As noted by this Court in its order dated 19.08.2020, this matter remains part-heard. 22. This Court is of the view that since the petitioners are not being represented, an Amicus Curiae may be appointed to assist the Court in this matter. The Court requests Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate to assist the Court in this matter. He is present in the Court. He is agreeable to it. The Registry shall prepare paper-books and shall provide it to learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the CBI. 23. List this matter for hearing on 19.02.2026