Cannot assume public official shall favour a person because they are Facebook friends: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week observed that the mere fact that a public servant is a person’s Facebook friend would not raise the presumption that the officer would illegally favour the person (Dr Mohit Dhavan v. UT Chandigarh)..“Even otherwise, if a person appears in the friend list of a Facebook page of any public servant, it cannot be assumed that an official shall favour such a person in an illegal manner and maneuver investigation of a crime.”Punjab and Haryana High Court.Justice Sant Parkash was hearing a petition seeking the transfer of the investigation of a case registered at a Chandigarh Police station to another jurisdiction..One of the petitioner’s contentions was the alleged ‘proximity’ of a senior police official and his wife to the complainant..The petition alleged that Rakesh Asthana, previously the CBI Special Director, and his associate, Inspector-General of Police Tajinder Luthra, influenced the administrative authorities in Chandigarh to register a false FIR against him at the behest of a woman, Gertrude D' Souza. .The intention was to extort money from the petitioner, it was additionally claimed. The woman, along with another, visited the petitioner's clinic for dental implants and sought an amount of Rs. 50 lakh from him claiming deficient services and purportedly stating that she was close to Asthana’s family and also to Luthra. .Thereafter, a first information report by a third person was also filed at her behest, the petitioner claimed..He later filed a complaint before the Police Complaints Authority and the SSP Chandigarh. The petitioner, averring that he was disillusioned, filed a transfer petition before the High Court..He claimed that there were phone conversations through which Gertrude threatened him, but these were discovered to be unsubstantiated..To prove the police officers ‘proximity’ to Gertrude, the petitioner presented two emails sent to Asthana and Luthra by Gertrude and another patient who claimed his services were deficient. .He also lay a series of Facebook conversations before the Court..Unimpressed, the Court stated:.“It is indeed intriguing as to how the petitioner gained access to the Facebook account of this police official. Facebook accounts are privy to the account holder and the petitioner must be put to strict proof as to how has he been able to access the facebook account of a police official and where from he obtained the facebook conversations...”.As to the emails, the Bench reasoned:.“These documents by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be any connecting evidence substantiating the close family relations or influence of the Special Director, CBI in the investigation conducted by the police.”.Reiterating legal precepts that govern the transfer of investigations, the Court emphasized that its power to transfer cases could only be exercised in rare and exceptional cases, where the investigation lacked credibility and the transfer is necessary to do justice between parties and instil confidence in the public mind..The Court found that the ‘high ranking’ police officer in this case graduated university along with Gertrude D’Souza’s husband. This by itself could not be used to infer that he was “instrumental in getting the investigation conducted in a biased manner”, the Justice Parkash opined..On these terms, the transfer petition was dismissed..Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Surjewala and Advocate H.S. Lalli represented the petitioner while Assistant Public Prosecutor Charanjit Singh Bakhshi and Assistant Advocate General Ambika Bedi appeared for the Union Territory of Chandigarh..Read the Order: