Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 208 (PAT)

Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi v. State Of Bihar

2010-02-18

J.N.SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, who is a Senior Member of the Bar of this Court, has filed this writ application for the following reliefs: A. Issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/direction commanding the respondents 1 and 4 to make over the case viz. Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 174/09 dated 9.12.2009 to the Central Bureau of Investigation directing Respondent No. 3 to unearth the unvarnished truth upholding the Rule of Law. B. Issue a direction to quash/delete the interpolated portion from the "fardbeyan" and the F.I.R. C. Issue of an appropriate writ/ order/direction commanding the respondents to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the fardbeyan of the petitioner excluding the interpolation and subsequent insertion made in the F.I.R. and subject the culprit thereof to the process of the law of the land. D. Issue appropriate writs/order/ directionl to initiate suitable proceeding against Respondent No. 7 in whose handwriting the interpolation has been made. E. To grant such reiief(s) the petitioner would be found entitled to." 3. In respect of relief prayed in clause (B), it has been stated in the petition on oath that last line of first paragraph of the fardbeyan containing the sentence was not part of the statement of the petitioner which was recorded as fardbeyan. Petitioner submits that above sentence in the last line of the first paragraph of the fardbeyan is an apparent interpolation which will appear from the photocopy of the fardbeyan annexed as Annexure-9. From the photocopy of the fardbeyan it appears that last line has been written in somewhat smallerwriting due to paucity of space which does not rule out its insertion later on after the complete fardbeyan was recorded and signed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is under enquiry and the action has already been initiated against respondent no. 7. who was the then S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station and later on, he became Investigating Officer of the case from 29.1.2010. Although the enquiry is pending but since this statement on the affidavit has been made by a Senior M > nber of the Bar and a responsible Officer of this- Court, this Court is inclined to accept the same. 5. Although the enquiry is pending but since this statement on the affidavit has been made by a Senior M > nber of the Bar and a responsible Officer of this- Court, this Court is inclined to accept the same. 5. Therefore, this Court directs that last line of first paragraph of the fardbeyan, as quoted above, shall not bo treated as part of the fardbeyan, and shall not form part of the first information report also. The investigation of case will now proceed without that line and only on the basis of rest of statement in the fardbeyan, in accordance with law. 6. So far as relief no. (A) is concerned, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and Union of India submit that Central Bureau of Investigation is over-burdened with investigation of a large number of cases and, therefore, it is not possible for the C.B.I, to hold effective investigate ;n the case expeditiously. 7. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an alternative submission that responsibility with regard to proper and objective investigation may be entrusted to any senior Police Officer of the State, who shall be responsible for progress of investigation of the case on day-to-day basis objectively and shall supervise the same and ensure that final report is submitted in the case as soon as possible. For this, petitioner has suggested two names of the Police Officers, namely, one Ms. Anupma Nilekar, the present D.I.G. of Magadh Range, Gaya and one Mr. Arvind Pandey, an officer of the D.I.G. rank, presently posted in the Headquarters. 8. In the circumstances, this Court directs the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to entrust the responsibility of proper and objective investigation to either of the two officers, as suggested by the petitioner, as named above, who shall see that thorough and objective investigation is made in the case and the same is completed expeditiously and final report is submitted. 9. As stated in the counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate No. 1, who appears for the respondents and has filed counter affidavit, states that the authorities have already proceeded against respondent no. 7. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that Inspector of Jagdishpur Police Station has been entrusted with the responsibility of holding fresh investigation and the officer entrusted by the D.G.P. shall see that fresh investigation proceeds under his/ her guidance and control. 10. 7. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that Inspector of Jagdishpur Police Station has been entrusted with the responsibility of holding fresh investigation and the officer entrusted by the D.G.P. shall see that fresh investigation proceeds under his/ her guidance and control. 10. It is expected that the said proceeding against respondent no. 7 will be held expeditiously and final result or the said proceeding shall also be intimated to this Court by the next date. 11. So far as investigation of the case is concerned, the officer entrusted by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna shall submit a report in that respect to this Court within two months. 12. Let this matter be listed within first-five cases on 3rd March, 2010. 13. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Government Advocate No. 1.