Srikant Kumar @ Mallu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Senior Superintendent Of Poice, Gaya.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1274 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2021 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Srikant Kumar @ Mallu Yadav S/o Late Jawahar Yadav R/o vill- Naili, P.S.- Magadh Medical, Distt- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 2.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya 3.
The Station House Officer, PS- Magadh Medical, District Gaya. 4.
The Investigating Officer of Magadh Medical Police Station Case no. 237 of 2021, District Gaya. Bihar 5.
Sarita Devi W/o Late Satyendra Kumar R/V- Belahi P.S.- Magadh Medical, Distt- Gaya, Bihar.
6.
Virendra yadav s/o Leela Yadav r/v- Belahi P.S.- Magadh Medical, DisttGaya, Bihar. 7.
Pawan Yadav S/o Virendra Yadav R/V- Belahi P.S.- Magadh Medical, DisttGaya, Bihar. 8.
Arjun Yadav s/o ramvriksha yadav r/v- belahi p.s.- Magadh Medical, DisttGaya, Bihar. 9.
Arvind Yadav S/o Ramvriksh Yadav R/V- Belahi P.S.- Magadh Medical, Distt- Gaya, Bihar.
10.
Dhirendra Yadav S/o Panna Yadav R/V- Belahi P.S.- Magadh Medical, DisttGaya, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amit Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-11-2022 Heard Mr. Amit Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State. The petitioner in the present case is seeking following reliefs:- "(i) For directing the State respondents to properly investigate FIR no. 237/2021 dated 06.09.2021 registered in Magadh Medical
2/6 Police Station of District Gaya, for offences under sections 302, 325, 341, 307, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 27 of the Arms Act at present pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Gaya having G.R. no. 4513/2021.
(ii) For directing the State respondents to lend ear to the explanation of the petitioner and the threats of murder he has been receiving from private respondents in connection with this case.
(iii) For directing the State respondents to investigate into role of private respondents for conspiring and hiring a contract killer to murder the petitioner and his relatives.
(iv) For directing the respondents to provide security to the petitioner and his family.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the petitioner for which she is entitled under law."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having noticed the submissions of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 15480 of 2022, a learned Bench of this Court has been pleased to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. At this stage, his grievance is that the case in question is not being properly investigated from all the angles. He has approached this Court only for a direction to the official respondents to conduct a proper and fair investigation of the case.
In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State jointly submit that the reliefs prayed in this application may be taken care of, if the official respondents abide by the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153
3/6 of 2017 (Surendra Singh versus the State of Bihar and Ors.) and other analogous cases.
Having regard to the kind of submissions made before this Court, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ application in terms of the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 153 of 2017. The operative part of the order/directions 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 materials which are required to be dealt with. It is to be kept in mind that only because the Criminal
4/6 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.
(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
5/6 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.
, the learned Magistrate shall definitely 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.
6/6 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.
(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."
The supervising authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya (respondent no. 2) and the competent court in whose jurisdiction the case is pending are directed to act accordingly and conclude the investigation expeditiously.
This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T