Samim Ara Begum @ Sanam Ara Begum v. The State Of Bihar Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1331 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2019 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Samim Ara Begum @ Sanam Ara Begum W/O S.K Mogal R/o villageVrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Bihar, Patna 4.

The Additional Director General of Police, Weaker Section (Kamjor Warg), Bihar, Patna 5.

The D.I.G., Champaran Range, Bettiah 6.

The Superintendent of Police, bettiah, West Champaran 7.

The S.D.P.O., Narkatiaganj, West Champaran 8.

The S.H.O., Sathi Police Station, West Champaran, (Bettiah) 9.

Sai Mumtaj Alam, Investigating Officer-Cum-Additional Police Inspector, Sathi P.S., West Champaran Bettiah, 10.

Md. Sanaullah S/o Late Fida Hussain R/o village- Vrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran 11.

Khalikur Rahman S/o Md. Sanaullah R/o village- Vrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran 12.

Dilshad Alam S/o Sk. Mojamil R/o village- Vrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran 13.

Safaur Rahman @ Karl S/o Md. Sanaullah R/o village- Vrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran 14.

Naushad Alam S/o Sk. Mojamil R/o village- Vrindawan, P.O.- Daniyal Parsauna, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove all the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within three weeks from today.

2/7 Petitioner, in the present writ application, is praying for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders or direction direction the respondent no. 1 to 6 to conduct proper and fair investigation in Sathi Police Station Case No. 101 of 2019 against respondent no. 10 to 14 and submit charge-sheet under Section 302, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them without further delay. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders or direction directing the respondent no. 1 to 9 to provide security to the life and property of the petitioner and her family members.

(iii) For issuance of any other order or orders for which petitioner is found entitled to."

Petitioner is the informant of the case. Her grievance is that the investigating agency are not looking into various aspects of the matter. Allegations have been made that respondent no. 1 to 9 have failed to discharge their duty in the interest of the public in general and to the helpless lady (petitioner in particular), hence interference of this Court is required.

It is further submitted that the accused are habitual offenders and they are moving freely in the society and are giving threat to the petitioner and her family members to withdraw all the cases otherwise be ready to face dire consequences.

Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AAG-III

3/7 submits that in the given facts and circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued by this Court similar to the order passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153/2017 and other analogous cases.

In the said batch of cases this Court has, after relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the following directions which are being reproduced hereunder for 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. The 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.

4/7 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 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.

5/7 (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 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 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.

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 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." In the nature of the reliefs prayed in this writ application, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police Bettiah at West Champaran (respondent no. 6) and the competent court within whose jurisdiction the case is pending to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court.

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'.