Shanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Home And Affairs, Bihar, Patna.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1043 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2020 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== SHANTI DEVI W/o Rajkishore Yadav Resident of Village - Alauli, P.S.- Alauli, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary Deptt. of Home and Affairs, Bihar, Patna. Bihar 2.
The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna. Bihar 3.
The Distt. Magistrate, Khagaria. Bihar 4.
The Superintendent of Police, Khagaria. Bihar 5.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khagaria. Bihar 6.
The S.H.O. Cum I.O. of Alauli, P.s.- Alauli, Distt.- Khagaria. Bihar ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-11-2022 This writ application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct proper investigation of Alauli P.S. Case No. 191 of 2020 under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325, 352(A), 379, 504, 506/34 and 3⁄4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.-4 for the State submits that in this case the investigation is complete against almost all the accused persons except one and some of the accused persons have already been arrested or have surrendered in the learned court below. The investigation is
2/7 pending only against accused no. 5 Rahul Kumar. Learned counsel for the State submits that in fact this case has been found true against accused Rahul Kumar but his arrest could not be made. It is submitted that very soon the chargesheet will be filed in the learned court below. Having regard to the statements made on behalf of the State, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Khagaria to ensure completion of investigation and submission of police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. within a reasonable period preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In course of investigation and prior to submission of the chargesheet, the common order dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No.
153 of 2017 and other analogous cases shall equally apply in respect of this case. The directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned cases are being reproduced hereunder:- "(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 aggrieved 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
4/7 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 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.
5/7 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 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 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. 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 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."
This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/- 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'.