Manorma Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1353 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2021 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== MANORMA DEVI W/o Balram Prasad, Resident of Village - Kant, P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar , Old Secretariat, Patna. 3.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Inspector General of Police, Central Division, Patna. 6.

The Deputy Inspcetor General of Police, Shahabad Division, Dehri on Sone. Rohtas, Bihar 7.

The Superintendent of Police, Buxar.

8.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, Buxar. 9.

The S.H.O. Brahmpur of Police Station , Distt.- Buxar. ... ..Respondent 1st Set.

10.

Sanjay Yadav Son of Munni Yadav Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar.

11.

Pankaj Yadav @ Khiju Son of Munni Yadav Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar.

12.

Nepali Ansari Son of Ashik Ansari Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar.

13.

Lallu Yadav Son of Motak Yadav Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar.

14.

Mahesh Yadav Son of Chhathu Yadav Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar.

15.

Munna Yadav Son of Bhikari Yadav Resident of Village - Kant , P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar .... ..Respondent 2nd Set.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms.Sudha Chandra,Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.M. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove all the

2/8 defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within three weeks from today.

Petitioner, in the present case, is the informant of Brahampur P.S. Case No. 448/2021 registered on 17.08.2021 under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 504, 448, 354(B), 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner resides in her native village with her minor sons and daughters. It is alleged that the respondents - 2nd Set are disparate criminals of the locality and habitual criminals and they are involved in number of criminal cases. Allegedly they are engaged in purchase and sale of liquor in the locality. It is alleged that the two accused persons were indulged in eve teasing of her daughter who is a school going student. She refers an occurrence in respect of which information was given to the S.H.O. of the Brahampur Police Station.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the police did not register the case under proper provisions of the Indian Penal Code and had shown laxity in the investigation of the case as a result whereof the accused persons who were arrested got privilege of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being emboldened by the order getting bail the accused persons again

3/8 indulged in committing an offence against the informant and her family members. In this regard Brahampur P.S. Case No. 605/2022 dated 14.08.2022 has been registered. It is submitted in these circumstances appropriate direction be issued to the investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation of the case, apprehend the accused persons and take steps for cancellation of bail of those who may be found involved in commission of the offence alleged while enjoying the privilege of bail.

Mr. N.H. Khan, learned SC-1 is present for the State. It is submitted that accused persons had surrendered in the court below and they have been released on bail.

Be that as it may, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the Superintendent of Police, Buxar (respondent no. 7) to supervise the case in terms of the common order dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153/2017 (Surendra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous matters. Upon supervision of the case he will proceed to take appropriate view of the matter and shall issue instruction to the I.O. within a reasonable period.

The competent court where the case is pending shall also monitor the investigation in terms of the directions

4/8 contained in the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153/2017 which 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. 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.

(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

5/8 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.

6/8 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.

7/8 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.

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.

8/8 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."

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'.