Virendra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretay, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.915 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2020 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Virendra Thakur, s/o- Late Mangar Thakur, resident of village- Agarwa, P.S.- Jitna, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretay, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari. 4.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari. 5.

The S.H.O.- Banjaria Police Station, District- East Champaran at Motihari 6.

The Investigating Officer of Banjaria P.S.- Case No.895/2020, District- East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar, AC to GP-4.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall remove all S.R. defect(s) within three weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking the following reliefs:- "(I) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), Direction(s) to the respondents to complete the investigation of Turkaulia (Banjaria) P.S. Case No. 895/2020 dated 15.12.2020 registered for offence under section 302/120B of the I.P.C. fairly and impartially forthwith in accordance with law. (II) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for which the petitioner is entitled

2/7 to in the facts and circumstances of the case." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the allegations is that of commission of a heinous offence, the investigating agency is sitting tight over the matter and till date the investigation has not been completed. Learned counsel submits that from the counter affidavit, it would appear that the S.D.P.O. Sadar has supervised the case and found the case to be true but the investigating agency is not able to trace the accused persons. According to him the inaction on the part of the police in taking up the matter sincerely has not only delayed the investigation but has also allowed the culprits to go scot-free. This Court recently while disposing of a batch of writ applications the lead case being Cr.W.J.C. No.

153/2017 has for purpose of conduct proper investigation of the case issued the 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.

3/7 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 erodes public faith and confidence in the investigating agency.

4/7 (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 law with utmost expedition.

(VI) This Court has already reproduced the

5/7 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 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.

In such circumstance an aggrieved person may also file an application seeking initiation of contempt.

7/7 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."

This Court finds that this case would be covered by the direction mentioned here-in-above.

Let the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari (respondent no. 3) look into the grievance of the petitioner, supervise the case and issue appropriate directions to the Investigating Officer. The court below shall also look into the records and satisfy itself with the on-going investigation. This application stands disposed of.

Certified copy of this order be made available only after removal of the defects. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/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'.