Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 287 (PAT)

Ram Nandan Yadav v. State of Bihar

1987-09-07

B.N.AGRAWAL, S.ALI AHMAD

body1987
Order of the Court. On 27th July, 1986, an occurrence took within the jurisdiction of Nayagaon Police station in which two personsn, amealn Mohan Singh and Shivan Yadav were killed. On that very day, one Kayo Jha lodged a first information report on the basis of which Nayagaon P.S. Case no. 32 of 1986 was registered under section 302 and various other section of the Penal Code. Another first information report was lodged on 30th July, 1986 of which the informant was Ram Nandan Yadav. This related to killing of Shivan Yadav, Nayagaon P.S. case no. 33 of 1986 was registered on the basis of this first information report. The police on the basis of these two first information reports which related to the same occurrence started investigation. 2. Admittedly on 31st August, 1986, the Superintendent of Police directed the police to submit charge that in both the cases. Also again. He only charge that was wticed on 20.10.1986 and cognizance was taken on 12.12.1986 in Nayagaon P.S. Case no. 32 of 1986. But surprisingly no report in final from was submitted in case no. 33 of 1986, although naturally on the facts of the case investigation and supervision by the Superintendent of police was made by a common order in the two cases. Therefore if the investigation was complete, report in final form in the other case should also have been filed But as we have said it was not done why? It is difficult for us at this stage to speculate Then on 14.11.1986, a petition was filed by Jagdish Yadav, father of Shivan Yadav to the I.G. (C.I.D.) stating therein that one Mithilesh Singh of the petitioner of this case was actual killer of Soivan Yadav. A similar application was also sent to the I.G. (C.I.D) by the Bihar State Grievance and Vigilance Board. It will be pertinent to mention here that according to the petitioner, the Dy. Superintendent of police had doubted the genuineness of the application filed by Jadish Yadav, But at this stage we do not want to say anything further in this regard. This is a question which, if necessary, will have to be determined by the trial court. On the basis of the petition received by the I.G. (C.I.D), preliminary enquiry was conducted. The C.I.D Inspector submitted a preliminary report on .19.12.1986. This is a question which, if necessary, will have to be determined by the trial court. On the basis of the petition received by the I.G. (C.I.D), preliminary enquiry was conducted. The C.I.D Inspector submitted a preliminary report on .19.12.1986. The I.G. (C.I.D) there upon passed an order on 15.1.1987 directing the allegation made in Nayagaon P.S. case no. 33 of 1986 to be investigated by the C.I.D. The case was formally taken over for investigation on 2.2.1987. The grievance of the petitioner' is that on the facts of this case the order dated 15.1.1987 directing taking over of investigation by the I.G.(C.I.D) is bad as also the taking over of investigation by the C.I.D. authorities on 2.2.1987. 3. Although a lot of materials have been brought on record by the petitioner, the State and Jagdish Yadav, who is sought to be added as a party to this writ application. But we have purposely refrained from making any reference to 'those facts lest they' may prejudice the parties in the trial. We have only mentioned such facts' which are 'absolutely necessary for the disposal of this writ application. 4. Admittedly, occurrence was one. Two versions of the same occurrence were given one in Nayagaon P.S. Case no. 32 of 1986 and the other in Nayagaon P.S. case no. 33 of 1986 Jagdish Yadav, father of the deceased Shivan Yadav came out with a' third version. No objection could have been taken if all the three versions were sent to the C.I.D. for investigation. But in this case, we find that the correctness of only one version, namely, the version as stated in Nayagaon P.S. case no. 33 of 1986 has been taken over by the C.I.D. This certainly is not proper. We accordingly quash the order dated 15.1.1987 by which formal control order for taking over investigation was passed by the I.G. (C.I.D). Consequently the investigation carried on by the C.I.D. in pursuance of the control order is also quashed. The Investigating Officer of Nayagaon P.S. Case no.33 of 1986 will now as directed by the Superintendent of Police will submit report in final form. We make it clear that in case the Investigating Officer has collected any material or will collect any materiel in future against Mithilesh Singh then he also can be sent up by the Police. The Investigating Officer of Nayagaon P.S. Case no.33 of 1986 will now as directed by the Superintendent of Police will submit report in final form. We make it clear that in case the Investigating Officer has collected any material or will collect any materiel in future against Mithilesh Singh then he also can be sent up by the Police. We also make it clear that if in course of trial evidence comes against a person or persons. who has/have not been sent up by the Police then trial court will consider if those person also should he summoned for trial. The application is thus disposed of. Application allowed.