Amarjeet Kumar v. The Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Home, Government Of India, New Delhi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1755 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-2018 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== AMARJEET KUMAR, Son of Late Pradip Thakur, Resident of Village - Basatwara, Post - Basatwara Dih Tola, P.S.- Simri, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. New Delhi.
2.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), New Delhi through its Director. New Delhi 3.
The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Bihar, Patna. 4.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 6.
The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga. 7.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga. 8.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga. 9.
The City Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga. 10.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Darbhanga. 11.
The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Simri Police Station, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amrit Abhijat,Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Deepak Kumar,AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner in the present case is seeking for the following reliefs:- "A) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No.
11, the S.H.O. of Simri Polce Station, Darbhanga to institute a F.I.R. on the basis of
2/8 written report submitted by the petitioner on 23.10.2018 receipt of which has been issued by the Officer of the Police Station in the date of 24.10.2018 (Annexure-1) under appropriate Sections of the Indian Penal Code and also other Sections of other Act, if necessary.
B) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to handover/issue copy of seizure list in favour of petitioner with respect to the items seized by A.S.I. Shri Suresh Kumar Dubey on 25.10.2018 although seizure list was prepared on 24.10.2018.
C) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation of Simri P.S. Case No. 137 of 2018 as the local Police is hand in globe with the perpetrator of crime, who burnt to death his parents by locking door of the house, throwing kerosene oil, explosive substance etc. through ventilator and setting it fire with a further prayer to direct timely conclusion of investigation so that offenders may be brought to the justice.
D) And/or any other relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that on the basis of the written report dated 22.10.2018 submitted by the petitioner, one unnatural death case bearing no. 05 of 2018 was registered. Thereafter, on the basis of the written report of A.S.I. Suresh Kumar Dubey who was the I.O. of the U.D. Case No. 05 of 2018, the same has been converted in Simri P.S. Case No. 137 of
3/8 2018 registered for the offences under Section 302, 307, 436, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which informant has stated that during enquiry of the U.D. Case, Amarjeet Kumar, son of Late Pradeep Thakur, and his Mama Manoj Kumar and his other relatives stated that some unknown criminals threw burning flame through ventilator as a result of which his mother and father were burnt. Both the injured died on 27.10.2018 and 28.10.2018 respectively. It is further stated that Amarjeet Kumar (petitioner) filed a protest petition on 04.07.2019 in the court of learned C.J.M., Darbhanga in which he has made ten persons as accused. In paragraph '14' of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the case is still under investigation in want of the report of Electricity Department regarding cause of fire, report from F.S.L.
regarding seized articles produced by the writ petitioner and the call details of cell phone of the suspected accused persons and in this regard, the S.P., Darbhanga has directed the S.H.O Simri Police Station -cumI.O. of the case to comply the instructions given in the supervision note and in the report two and three within a week. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the investigation of the case is still going on, therefore, the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.
4/8 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 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
5/8 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
6/8 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.
, 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.
7/8 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."
The directions quoted hereinabove shall equally apply in respect of this case. The petitioner may seek his remedy for proper
8/8 investigation of the case before the competent authority and the competent court where the investigation is pending. At this stage, this Court does not find any plausible reason to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over this case. In case the petitioner would be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the investigation and monitoring of the case, he will have his remedy open.
This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Tusharika/- lekhi/- 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'.