2. Pratima Devi W/O Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh 3. Lokesh Kumar S/O Sheo Shankar v. 1. The State of Bihar through Home Commission
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ======================================================= 1. Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh S/O Shri Kapildeo Prasad Singh Criminal Writ No.948 of 2012 2. Pratima Devi W/O Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh 3. Lokesh Kumar S/O Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh 4. Rupesh Kumar S/O Sheo Shankar Pd. Singh All resident of Village- Chanre, P.O.- Abgil, P.S.- Korma, District- Sheikhpura. 5. Munni Devi @ Munni Kumari D/O Sheo Shankar Pd. Singh, W/O Sri Chandra Kant Kumar, resident of Village- Bhadaus, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura, Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Home Commissioner/Principal .... .... Petitioner/s Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, Munger 6. D.I.G. of Police, Munger 7. Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura 8. Dy. S.P. Sheikhpura 9. Officer-In-Chage, O.P. Sirari, Sheikhpura Police Station, Dist.- Sheikhpura 10. Sumitra Devi W/O Dev Brat Anand Singh Resident of Village- Bhadaus, P.S.- Sheikhpura, Dist.- Sheikhpura 11. Dipak Kumar Resident of Village- Hurrahi, P.S.- Pakribarama, Distt.- Nawadah 12. Murari Singh S/O Vijay Singh R/O Vill.- Bhadaus, P.S. & Distt.- Sheikhpura
Legal Reasoning
otherwise intentions. In the instant case, prima facie official respondents did commit no wrong so neither they nor the State appears liable to pay, under law, any compensation to the petitioners. 13. So far the prayer as regard to taking any action against the official respondents especially respondent No. – 8 (Dy.S.P.) is concerned. The facts and circumstances as indicated above does not warrant such any action. 7 Simultaneously there appears no need to pass any order of compensation to the petitioners. However, this order will not come as a bar, if the petitioners initiate any independent proceeding, in accordance with law, before competent court/authorities against any individual for such compensation etc. 14. With the above observation, Interlocutory Application No. 1888 of 2012 as well this writ application
Arguments
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate .... .... Respondents 2 For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.-21 For the Respondent No.11 : Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate =========================================================== Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-21 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 01 -10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners preferred this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, initially seeking the following reliefs : - “I. For Commanding and directing the respondents, to conduct prompt and fair investigation in respect of Sheikhpura (Sirari) P.S. Case No. 348/2012 dated 22.08.2012 in which petitioners have been named as accused under section 366/34 of the I.P.C. II. For commanding and directing the respondent to ensure safe recovery of Amrita @ Smita Kumari, wife of respondent no. 11 namely Dipak Kumar without any further delay. III. For commanding and directing the respondents, to take proper and legal action, against the guilty persons, who are found liable for false implication of petitioners in the instant case, and for diverting the police investigation by furnishing false and misleading information, about the alleged occurrence, for avenging their personal grudge and malice. 3 IV. For commanding and directing the respondents to entrust the investigation of the instant case, to any fair and competent investigation of the instant case, to any fair and competent investigation agency, which this Hon’ble Court, deems fit and proper, for the ends of justice.” 3. And subsequently through Interlocutory Application No. 1887/2012 two more reliefs were added they are : I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the whole proceeding including F.I.R. as contained in Annexure – 1 to the main writ petition and protest petition as contained in Annexure – 3 of the main writ petition so far as petitioners are concerned. II. Cost, compensation and incidental of proceedings may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” 4. Undisputedly at the instance of private respondent no. 10 Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 348 of 2012 under section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the petitioners with the assertion that her daughter Amrita @ Smita having mobile no. 9135208969 which was switched off since the date of occurrence, wife of Deepak Kumar, respondent no. 11 went for drawing some cash from ATM at Sheikhpura, on 11th August 2012 at about 9.00 a.m. but when she did not return by the 4 following day and they are not traceable search was going on during which respondent no. 12 Murari Singh informed about seeing her in the company of the petitioners going through a Bolera Vehicle in the market and when the informant contacted the petitioners they became furious starting abusing and intimated where she had to go she had already gone. Thus, raising fingers against the petitioners, this case was instituted. 5. Petitioner no. 1 claiming himself to be a legal practitioner at Sheikhpura since1983 filed Annexure – 2 submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister, Bihar, providing some points for investigation, sought some sort of protection for him against arrest by police till conclusion of investigation etc. 6. Counter affidavit to main writ application was filed on 9th October 2012 wherein it is stated that the victim is yet to be recovered and no process has been taken against the petitioners in on going investigation is at very crucial stage. Rejoinder to the above counter affidavit was filed on 5th November 2012, it is stated that the victim has already been recovered on 7th October 2012 she has also got her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. disclosing no allegation against the petitioners but official respondents did not disclose the above facts in their earlier counter affidavit and they need to be subjected to the proceedings 5 under section 195 read with section 340 Cr.P.C. 7. And by filing another Interlocutory Application No. 1888/2012 on 5th November 2012 initiation of a proceeding in accordance with section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. against Sri Madan Kishore Singh, Dy.S.P. sworn in affidavit on behalf of the official respondent nos. 8 & 9 on 9th October 2012 especially in view of statement as contained therein the victim girl has not been recovered up till now. 8. At this juncture it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that statement of fact was received a bit earlier, and by the time counter affidavit was prepared no such recovery was made. Though, it is true just two days before filing of counter affidavit victim was recovered, but at the same time, there was no deliberate or active concealment of fact known to the official respondents. 9. By filing rejoinder to the above rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the official respondents have further submitted enclosing copy of final form in the case stated that charge-sheet has already been submitted against non- F.I.R. accused whose name emerged in investigation exonerating the petitioners from the charges leveled and it is submitted that this writ application has already served its purpose. 10. As pointed out that one protest complaint 6 petition was filed at earlier stage by the informant as early as on 31st August 2012 is still pending disposal by the court below where police has after concluding investigation submitted final form exonerating the accused petitioners. 11. Now it is for the court in seisin to examine the materials available on record by way of F.I.R. and final form based on details memorandum of investigation, protest complaint etc. to examine and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 12. However, in face of any allegation leveled against a person giving rise to commission of cognizable offence, the authorities concerned are bound to come into action, they cannot throw such complaint out because of the personality of the person complained off. They may be said to have committing wrong if no proper inquiry/investigation is made and in the event of finding no material they keep anyone confined or detained with
Decision
both stand disposed of. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J)