Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 391 (JHR)

Tapsi Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-30

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order This writ petition had been registered in view of a letter petition submitted by one Smt. Tapsi Choudhary alleging complaint of a grave nature that although her daughter, Mousami Choudhary, had been killed in a mysterious circumstance and she had approached the police station in-charge for lodging a F.I.R. the plea had been brushed aside and no F.I.R. was lodged, due to which she had approached this Court by way of a letter petition which was later registered as a writ petition. Thereafter this Court had directed the respondent authorities to record and register the F.I.R. of Smt. Tapsi Choudhary and conduct investigation of the case lodged. Curiously, the F.I.R. at the instance of Smt. Tapsi Choudhary has still not been registered and the Investigating Authority submitted a charge-sheet only under Section 287 I.P.C. on the basis of the F.I.R. registered as a case of accident at the instance of the friend of the deceased, ignoring the version of the mother of the deceased who alleged that her daughter had been killed and it was not a case of accident. 2. We fail to understand as to how, in spite of the allegation, the Investigating Authority failed to register the F.I.R. at the instance of the mother of the deceased on the plea that it was a case of accident, when the case was registered earlier merely at the instance of a friend of the deceased. When the mother of the deceased has alleged that the friend of the deceased had been gained over by the accused persons and a case was not registered for the actual incident in regard to the death of her daughter giving it a colour of accident and suppressing the fact that she had been killed by some accused persons, the complaint of the mother obviously needs to be investigated. 3. Under the circumstance, we cannot ignore that the Investigating Authority could not have refused to register a case ignoring the allegation of the mother of the deceased incorporating the relevant sections on the basis of the charge/version of the informant-mother, after which the matter could be investigated by the C.B.1.to whom the matter had been entrusted for investigation. Prima facie, it cannot be overlooked that the investigating authorities cannot assume the role of a court of law and refuse to register a F.LR. Prima facie, it cannot be overlooked that the investigating authorities cannot assume the role of a court of law and refuse to register a F.LR. in spite of the case/version of the informant-mother and at the top of it, arrive at a conclusion that no case is made out under Section 302 I.P.C. which is alleged by the informant-mother of the deceased. It is a well acknowledged legal position that in the first instance, a case has to be registered as per the version of the informant and on the basis of the same sections making out the relevant offence are incorporated in the F.LR. after which the investigation proceeds. But if at the first instance itself, the version of the informant is ignored by not registering the F.LR. and the relevant sections as per the informant's allegation is not incorporated even in the F.LR. which is lodged by a stranger or uninterested party, obviously the investigation is bound to be influenced and an eye-wash, leaving the scope for the investigating authorities to substitute their own opinion, under which a case is to be registered and a charge sheet is to be submitted, which, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, is certainly not correct and legal. We, therefore, had directed the authorities to, first of all, register a case on the basis of the complaint/version of the mother of the deceased incorporating the relevant sections including Section 302 I.P.C. since the allegation levelled by the informant-mother is that her daughter had been killed and it was not a case of accidental death, which was sought to be made out. 4. We also fail to understand under what authority of law, the Investigating Authority has arrived at a finding that it was a case of accidental death and refused even to register a case under Section 302 I.P.C. We had given an opportunity to the respondent-C.B.L to explain as to why a case has been registered only under Section 287 LP.C. ignoring the version of the informant-mother, in reply to which it has merely been stated that no evidence was found in support of the charge of killing of the deceased, completely missing that if at the first instance itself a case under Section 304 I.P.C. had not been registered by the C.B.1. despite the complaint of the mother of the deceased, we fail to comprehend as to what investigation could possibly be done by the Investigating Authorities in regard to the allegation levelled by the informant. 5. It is, therefore, of imperative legal necessity to direct the respondent-Investigating Authority to first of all register a case as alleged by the mother of the deceased, after which obviously they would be free to proceed with the investigation in the light of the statements, due to be recorded in course of their investigation, on the basis of which alone, a charge sheet could be submitted under the relevant section of I.P.C. in the light of the evidence collected. 6. Hence, the matter be posted again on 6.4.2010 to apprise this Court regarding the present status of the case to be registered.