Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 371 (PAT)

Ramjee Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-23

P.K.DEB

body2001
Judgment 1. Both the writ petitions have been heard at the admission stage analogous as the nature of grievances and the respondents in both the petitions are the same and similar, although, the petitioners are different. 2. In Cr WJC No. 295/2000 the petitioner Ramjee Singh is the informant in respect of Masrakh P.S. Case No. 223/99 which was registered on 29.9.1999 under Section 364/34, IPC on an incident which occurred on 27.9.1999 at 3 P.M. when accused persons (sic) eleven persons including respondent No. 8 Tarkeshwar Singh who is sitting MLA of Bihar. In Cr WJC No. 297/2000 the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh is the informant in respect of Masrakh P.S. Case No. 222/99 which was registered on 28.9.1999 under Sections 364, 342, 379/34, IPC and in that case also respondent No. 8 Tarkeshwar Singh, sitting MLA of Bihar alongwith others were named as accused persons. Both the cases were being investigated by the Statutory Police of Masrakh Police Station. But at the fag end of the investigation it appears as per the counter-affidavit, a petition was filed by respondent No. 8 Tarkeshwar Singh to the respondent No, 4 Director General of Police and on the basis of that petition as per the counter- affidavit, a preliminary enquiry was made by the respondent No. 5. Inspector General of Police, CID through his inspector and a report was submitted and then an order was passed through Wireless Message on 5.11.1999 for making over the investigation of both the cases to the CID. It further appears from the counter-affidavit filed by both respondent No. 8 and the CID that investigation was ordered to be made by an officer of the CID, but he could not take over charge, as he was transferred. Then another Officer of the CID was appointed as Investigating Officer. But till the counter-affidavit has been filed by the CID when charge of the investigation could not taken up by the CID. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that there was no scope of the Director General of Police to make any order for withdrawing of the investigation from the Statutory Police to the CID and such Wireless Message sent is without jurisdiction having no authority of the Director General of Police to that effect. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that there was no scope of the Director General of Police to make any order for withdrawing of the investigation from the Statutory Police to the CID and such Wireless Message sent is without jurisdiction having no authority of the Director General of Police to that effect. The respondent No. 8 wanted to be impleaded in this writ petition and as such he was impleaded and he also filed counter-affidavit. According to him, he had been falsely implicated in the politically motivated criminal cases which were registered on poling days and thereafter in the last Assembly Election. According to respondent No. 8, he was not at the spot where the occurrence took place as alleged and only to cloud his image these cases have been lodged against him and he found that he would be unnecessarily harassed in the cases and as such he had to make an application to the Director General of Police and the Director General of Police after preliminary enquiry made over the investigation of the cases to the CID. The legal question arises and emerges on the above mentioned facts and circumstances are : (i) whether there was any authority of the Director General of Police to take over the investigation of the cases from the Statutory Police and make over the same to the CID (ii) whether there can be any scope of any parallel investigation and enquiry by the two wings of the police? 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously argued by referring to the Apex Court judgment that there is no scope of taking away the investigation from the Statutory Police on political motive only to shield the political persons who are in the helms of affairs of the State. His further submission is that if such sort of things are encouraged, then there can be an anomaly in the administration of justice and also amongst the wings of the Police Department. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior Counsel for and on behalf of the respondent No. 8 submits that under Chapter XV, Rule 425 and Rule 1010 of Bihar Police Manual, the DGP (CID) has got power to take and assume control over specially reported cases. 6. I have gone through these rules and various provisions of Bihar Police Manual. Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior Counsel for and on behalf of the respondent No. 8 submits that under Chapter XV, Rule 425 and Rule 1010 of Bihar Police Manual, the DGP (CID) has got power to take and assume control over specially reported cases. 6. I have gone through these rules and various provisions of Bihar Police Manual. But nowhere I can find that DGP can assume control on a petition being filed by an accused in a case. If any such sort of authority has been conferred to the DGP that he can take and assume control over charge of investigation of a case from Statutory Police that too on the basis of a petition filed by an accused who happens to be an influential person, then, perhaps that would be the most unfortunate thing for the criminal jurisprudence itself. 7. It appears at the first instance that nowhere the State Police asked for any assistance from the CID. Only it was initiated by the CID on the petition being filed by an accused in a case. When the investigation was already in vogue by the Statutory Police, then even if a petition has been filed and received by the Director General of Police he should have passed or forwarded that petition of the accused regarding his grievance to the Investigating Agency of the case for taking note of that and investigate the matter with reference to that also. There was no scope of him to make an extra-ordinary enquiry through other Investigating Agency while investigation was going on. But he did so. It is not known under what authority an accused in a case, however influential he might be, can be allowed to lay his hands in the investigation of a case by his so-called influence. It might be that respondent No. 8 had been falsely implicated in both the cases. But that is a matter of investigation. He is named accused in both the FIRs. 8. A plea of alibi has been taken on behalf of respondent No. 8 as is revealed from the counter-affidavit itself. Such plea of alibi can only be thrashed by a Court of Law but the same can not be a ground for re-investigation that too by any other wing of the Police by taking over the case from the Statutory Police. 9. Such plea of alibi can only be thrashed by a Court of Law but the same can not be a ground for re-investigation that too by any other wing of the Police by taking over the case from the Statutory Police. 9. On the other hand, the procedure adopted in the present two cases are totally uncalled for and unwarranted. The respondent No. 8 have all the procedure opened under the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of his grievances in the Judicial Court. But he should not be allowed to interfere in the way the same has been done. It has been submitted by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior counsel for the respondents that by this time already investigation has been done by CID although, as per the counter-affidavit of the CID, they could not take over charge of the case. 10. I have already held that in the present position and circumstances, it can not be said that such so-called investigation by the CID has got any statutory force. In that way, making over the case to the CID by the Director General of Police is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the same is quashed. The writ petitions are hereby allowed to that extent. The Investigating Agency of both the criminal cases as mentioned above shall take all efforts to submit charge-sheets in the cases under Section 173, Cr PC as expeditiously as possible by apprehending all the accused persons against whom materials could be found and if not possible, then by taking all coercive processes as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.