Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1178 (JHR)

Asha Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-11-22

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

body2002
ORDER V.K. Gupta, CJ. 1. In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order/communication dated 27.4.2002 whereby investigation in Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 381/99 dated 9.10.1999 under Sections 376/385 and 120-B, IPC has been taken over by the C.I.D., Jharkhand Police. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Additional Director General, C.I.D., Jharkhand Police. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid order was issued on 27.4.2002 and interim charge- sheet, before that date, had already been filed in terms of Section 173, Cr PC and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazari-bagh had, therefore, already taken cognizance of the case 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, which are slightly interesting, are that the writ petitioner Asha Singh is the younger sister of one Kamini Singh, who in 1981 was married to accused-respondent No. 5 Anil Kumar Singh, who is presently serving as Sub-Inspector of Police in Jharkhand State. As per the version of the petitioner, as finding a mention in the FIR also (admittedly lodged in 1999), the relationship between Kamini Singh and accused Anil Kumar Singh became strained, inter alia, on the ground of Kamini Singh having developed an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. The FIR further goes to state that because of this estranged relationship between Kamini Singh and accused Anil Kumar Singh, the accused became infuriated and to appease and placate him, the parents of the petitioner, Kamini Singh and others hatched a conspiracy to send the petitioner to the accused, so that the petitioner and the accused could have illicit sexual relationship with each other. The maternal uncle of the petitioner was actually the person who took the petitioner to the accused in Hazaribagh. All this happened in the year 1985. It is also the case of the petitioner that she got married to one Sanjay Singh in the year 1987. The petitioners complaint goes on to state that even after 1987, on the compulsion of her parents, her sister and others, she continued illegal sexual relationship with the accused Anil Kumar Singh. 3. The machinery of law, for the first time, was set in motion by the petitioner in the year 1999. The petitioner appears to have made complaints/representations to the National Commission for Women and the National Human Rights Commission. 3. The machinery of law, for the first time, was set in motion by the petitioner in the year 1999. The petitioner appears to have made complaints/representations to the National Commission for Women and the National Human Rights Commission. Apparently, at the instance of these commissions, the police registered the FIR, which,, as indicated hereinabove, contain the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner against the respondent. 4. While the charge sheet had been submitted by the police in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, the aforesaid impugned order was passed on 27.4.2002. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the respondents acting in terms of Rule 410, read with Rule 425 of the Bihar Police Manual have decided to further investigate the matter. Admittedly, Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Police to further investigate the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon a judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Raghunath Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 East Cr C 561 (Pat). 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not a case where interference of this Court is called for or warranted. I am also of he considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and that the law empowers the police to conduct further investigation in this case. 7. However, in view of the aforesaid facts, it is desirable that the process of investigation, for that matter the process of entire investigation, is completed in this case very very expeditiously. I, therefore, direct the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to personally ensure that whichever agency is involved in further investigation or the entire investigation, the same is completed by that Agency within a period of three months from today and a report is finally filed/submitted to the Court concerned. 8. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Learned Advocate General is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, within a week from today. 10. Let copies of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties.