Lakho Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1060 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2022 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== LAKHO DEVI W/o Chandeshywar Ram Resident of Village- Bishambhar Chapra, P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Bihar 2.
The Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna Bihar 3.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna. Bihar 4.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra. Bihar 5.
The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra. Bihar 6.
The Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Marhaurah, Saran. Bihar 7.
The Station House Officer, Taraiya, P.S., Saran. Bihar 8.
The Investigating Officer, Taraiya, P.S. Case No.136 of 2022, Taraiya, P.s.- Saran at Chapra. Bihar 9.
Rajan Ram S/o Hajari Ram Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
10.
Ranjay Ram S/o Hajari Ram Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
11.
Sita Devi D/o Hajari Ram Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
12.
Kavita Devi W/o Ajay Ram Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
13.
Lalita Devi @ Amrawati Devi W/o Hajari Ram Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra. 14.
Kishan Ram S/o not Known Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
15.
Ravi Ram S/o not Known Resident of Village- Sareya Ratnakar, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, AC to SC-01 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2/10
2. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents authority for proper investigation of the case lodged by the petitioner and for taking proper steps for arrest of the accused persons in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 136 of 2022 dated 28.4.2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 304-B and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner who is the informant in Taraiya P.S. Case No. 136 of 2022 lodged a written report before the SHO Taraiya Police Station stating therein that on 18.6.2021 the daughter of the informant, namely, Puja Kumari was married to the accused Rajan Ram. On 27.4.2022, in the evening at about 8:30 p.m., the informant received the phone call and caller informed that her daughter has been killed by the accused persons. The deceased was having pregnancy of six months at the time of occurrence. The petitioner/informant has alleged that her daughter has been killed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite lapse of about one year three months from the
3/10 date of lodging of First Information Report, no steps for arrest of the accused persons have been taken by the Police and the investigation is also not going on in right direction. The petitioner has filed a representation before various authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Chapra, at Saran which has been enclosed at Annexure-P/2 of this writ application. A coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2022 (6) BLJ (Surendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar) has laid down the parameters in paragraph10 of the judgment which is as follows:- "10.
In the aforementioned background of the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the law on the subject, this Court is issuing 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.
4/10 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
5/10 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 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
6/10 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 persons) 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
7/10 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., the learned Magistrate shall definitely
8/10 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 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.
9/10 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".
5. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the present writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Chapra at Saran, to look into the matter and dispose the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of parameters laid
10/10 down in the aforesaid judgment (supra). The proper decision must be taken by the Superintendent of Police, Chapra at Saran, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T