Rajiv Kumar Ram @ Rajiv Ram v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Commissioner, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.395 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2021 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

RAJIV KUMAR RAM @ RAJIV RAM Son of Nawal Kishore Ram @ Jai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra.

2.

Ranjan Ram @ Ranjan Raaz Son of Nawal Kishore Ram @ Jai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra.

3.

Chandan Ram @ Chandan Kumar Ram Son of - chulhai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. 4.

Kundan Ram @ Kundan Kumar Son of - Chulhai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. 5.

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar Ram Son of - Chulhai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. 6.

Chulhai Ram Son of Late janki Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra.

7.

Santosh Kumar Son of- Ramanand Ram @ Ramai Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. 8.

Shushil Kumar Ram @ Chhotan Ram Son of - Kishun Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. 9.

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Ram Son of - Jagdeo Ram Resident of Village - Molnapur, Police Station- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The Home Commissioner, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Zone, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range at Chapra. 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Saran at chapra. 6.

The Sub- Divisional Police office, Marhaura, District - Saran at Chapra. 7.

The officer In- Charge, Bheldi Police Station, District - Saran at Chapra. 8.

The Investigating officer, Bheldi Police Station, District - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

2/8 13-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State. Petitioners, in the present case, are seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for proper and fair investigation of Bheldi P.S. Case No. 388 of 2021 dated 10.12.2021 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 287, 188, 353, 427, 435, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Property Act. (ii) For quashing of aforesaid FIR Bheldi P.S. Case No. 388 of 2021 dated 10.12.2021 instituted and pending against the petitioners.

(iii) For direction upon the respondent authorities particularly Respondent No. 5 to 9 to exonerate the petitioners from the present case as the petitioners are being implicated in the present case without any material/substance which would be reflected from the facts stated hereunder.

(iv) For direction upon the respondent authorities of Saran police administration not to implicate the petitioners in any false and fabricated case only on the basis of created documents and on the basis of political dispute in the local area.

(v) For grant of the other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

On perusal of the allegations present in the first information report, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere with the ongoing investigation. No case for quashing of

3/8 the first information report is made out at this stage. The petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. and it is alleged that they had participated in the said occurrence. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners for purpose of quashing of the F.I.R. are in the nature of their defence and do not fit into any of the category of illustrations provided in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. So far as the prayer for proper and fair investigation of the case is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State agree that the same may be taken care of by the competent authority/court as the case may be in terms of the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153/2017 and other analogous cases.

Those directions are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- "(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.

4/8 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 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

5/8 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 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

6/8 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.

, the learned Magistrate shall definitely monitor the investigation, though he cannot investigate the case himself and will not act as supervisory authority but it is certainly within his domain to ensure that the investigation is done properly and for this purpose without interfering with the power of the Investigating 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.

7/8 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. In such circumstance an aggrieved person may also file an application seeking initiation 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.

The petitioners, the respondents and all other

8/8 stakeholders are, therefore, directed to act accordingly. This application stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copy of this order shall be made available only after removal of the defects.

(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'.