Sadhavi Mandvi Bayee v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.956 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2018 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Sadhavi Mandvi Bayee, D/o Shree Indra Deo Singh @ Dayanand, resident of Village- Mahugay, P.S.- Govindpur, District - Nawada at present residing at Bahiyara Asharam, P.S- Govindpur, Distt- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajauli,District- Nawada.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station- Govindpur, District- Nawada.
5. Dilchand Patel, resident of Village- Maduadih, P.S.- Birar, District - Janjgira chapa, Chattisgarh.
6. Kalpnath Choudhary.
7. Girja Shankar Choudhary.
8. Shayam Choudhary @ Taysyanand.
9. Ajit Choudhary. All are resident of Village- Salra, P.S.- lalganj, District - Basti, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s :
Ms. Babita Kumari. AC to SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner in the present case is inter alia looking for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for following reliefs:- (i) For directing and commanding the respondents, specially respondent no. 4 i.e. S.H.O. of P.S. Govindpur, District- Nawada, to properly investigate the Govindpur P.S. Case No. 4 of 2018 registered under Sections 395, 354, 354(A), 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the informant-petitioner against pri-
2/7 vate respondent nos. 5 to 9 and after proper investigation to submit its final report at the earliest. (ii) For directing the Superior Police Official to command their subordinate for proper investigation and also for taking appropriate step for arresting of the private respondent nos. 5 to 9 who have made accused in the said instant case. (iii) For directing and commanding the respondent to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner from accused person of Govindpur P.S. Case No. 4/2018 who are private respondent in this case, compelled him for compromise/withdraw the said case and threatened her for dire consequence. (iv) For grant of any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled upon facts as well as law both.
This Court has, while disposing of the batch of the writ applications the lead case being Cr.WJC No. 153 of 2017 issued following directions:- "(I) In the cases where the investigation of the case is still pending, the concerned writ petitioner/an aggrieved person (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner' or 'an aggrieved person') may file an appropriate application before the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district drawing his attention towards the pending investigation. The aggrieved
3/7 person shall submit his stand by way of an application with all supporting materials in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police or send the same through registered post/speed post/email, as the case may be. A copy of the same shall also be sent to the investigating officer of the case.
(II) On receipt of such application from the aggrieved person, the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police shall himself supervise the said case within a period of two weeks, wherever necessary he shall give a chance of hearing to the aggrieved person and all endeavours be made to consider the submissions as well as the materials produced before him.
(III) The Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police shall issue necessary instructions to any other supervising authority such as Dy.S.P. and also to the I.Os. of the case to complete the investigation from all angles within a reasonable period. What will be the reasonable period will depend upon the nature of the case and the kind of materials which are required to be dealt with. It is to be kept in mind that only because the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for maximum limit within which an investigation is to be completed, it does not mean that the investigation is to be kept pending for decades. There are many judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the prosecution has been quashed because the investigating agency failed to complete the investigation of the case despite lapse of several years. Undue delay in completion of investigation
4/7 erodes public faith and confidence in the investigating agency. (IV) Upon receipt of a request/application /representation from a person connected with the case and aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the investigation alleging improper investigation, complaints of threat to him or his family or the witnesses by his opponents, accused or his associates, it is the Sr. Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Station House Officer of the concerned police station as well as the I.O.
of the case who would be duty bound to enter or caused to be entered the information in the station diary of the police station and examine or caused to be examined the threat perception of the informant and/or his family members/witnesses and take appropriate steps at the earliest, in the cases where threat perceptions are found to be genuine, they would take immediate measures to protect the life of the person(s) under threat. Delay in examining the request/representation leading to any serious consequences shall in itself be a matter of enquiry and action against the erring police officials.
(V) As regards the grievance that accused persons are not being arrested in cases involving serious and heinous offences the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps keeping in view the law and judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. In the matter of absconding accused the I.O. must take immediate steps to arrest him and exhaust all other procedures in accordance with
5/7 law with utmost expedition.
(VI) This Court has already reproduced the extracts from judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra). In the light of the said judgment, this Court directs that in all these cases the learned Magistrate(s) in whose court the case is pending, shall, without seeking any application from the informant monitor the investigation. They are fully competent to take a view as to whether a proper investigation is taking place or not. Learned Magistrates are expected to exercise their powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure that investigation of the case pending before the learned Magistrate is duly investigated.
If it is found that the Investigating Officer is not proceeding with the investigation expeditiously and is keeping the same pending without rhyme or reason and in the opinion of the learned Magistrate it is found to be a case of inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate would be well within his powers to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police to change the Investigating Officer, to supervise the case himself by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police and to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. While exercising his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
6/7 gating Officer or the Supervising Authority to conduct an investigation, the learned Magistrate may issue appropriate directions which in his opinion is required for conduct of proper investigation. What would be the nature of such direction(s) in a given case cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and it is for the learned Magistrate to look into this aspect of the matter on case to case basis. An application filed by an aggrieved person with prior service of copy upon the learned Public Prosecutor/A.P.P. seeking directions for proper investigation must be heard expeditiously and the same be disposed of within a period of 30 days from the date on which such application is moved before the learned Magistrate on the first date. If the learned Magistrate fails to exercise his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
either on his own or on filing of the application by the aggrieved person, an appropriate application may be brought before this Court for an order/direction and monitoring as the case may be. (VII) If any of the directions issued by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the order of this Court as stated above to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police/investigating officer, unless otherwise interfered with by a competent court of law, is not given effect to by the concerned authorities, it will be taken to be a case of contempt of this Court and the learned Magistrate may inform this Court as regards the willful disobedience or disregard shown to the order/orders, direction/directions issued by him in terms of this judgment.
7/7 tion of contempt.
(VIII) All the stake-holders in the present writ applications shall act accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar to enable him to issue necessary instructions at the earliest."
The reliefs prayed in the present writ application shall be considered in terms of the directions nos. (1) to (VII) of the general order as stated hereinabove.
This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.