Bhupendra Ray 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.34 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2020 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== BHUPENDRA RAY Son of Sri Vishambhar Ray Resident of Village and P.O.- Rampur Rudra, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 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 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra. Bihar 7.
The Station House Officer, Maker P.S.- Saran at Chapra Bihar 8.
The Investigating Officer, Maker P.S.- Case No.70 of 2020, Maker, P.S.- Saran at Chapra. Bihar 9.
Raj Kumar Ray Son of Late Satyanarayan Ray Resident of Village- Nandan Kaituka, P.S.- Maker, District- Saran at Chapra. 10.
Shravan Ray Son of Late Satyanarayan Ray Resident of Village- Nandan Kaituka, P.S.- Maker, District- Saran at Chapra. 11.
Sindhu Devi D/o Late Satyanarayan Ray Resident of Village- Nandan Kaituka, P.S.- Maker, District- Saran at Chapra. 12.
Sandhya Kumari D/o Late Satyanarayan Ray Resident of Village- Nandan Kaituka, P.S.- Maker, District- Saran at Chapra. 13.
Akhilesh Ray Son of Motilal Ray Resident of Village- Bhorhan, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra.
14.
Motilal Ray Son of Late Munna Ray Resident of Village- Bhorhan, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Deepak Kumar, AC to GP-4 ====================================================== 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
2/7 from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner in the present case is seeking proper investigation of Maker P.S. Case No.70 of 2020 dated 18.06.2020 registered for the offence under Sections 147 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought proper investigation by submitting a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra vide Annexure-2 to the writ application and he has also filed an application in the learned court below but despite his all these moves neither the Superintendent of Police nor the learned court below has taken steps save and except that the learned court below vide its order dated 15.12.2020 called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra but thereafter did not take up the matter to a logical end.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 has drawn the attention of this Court towards the common order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.WJC No.153 of 2017 and other analogous matters. It is submitted that since the petitioner has
3/7 already moved the competent authority and the court below, they would be obliged to act in terms of the common order to redress the grievance of the petitioner.
For a ready reference, the common order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.WJC No.153 of 2017 and other analogous matters is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "(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
4/7 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.
(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
5/7 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 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. 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."
7/7 Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra (respondent no.5) as well as the competent court to act in terms with the said order as regards the present case also and redress the grievance of the petitioner.
This writ application stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copy of the order will be made available only after removal of the defects.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- 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'.