Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 436 (JHR)

Chandeshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order This writ application has been filed for directing the C.B.1. to take up the investigation of Govindpur P .S. Case No. 185 of 2005 instituted under Sections 363, 365 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code for the reason that the District Police has not been investigating the case properly. 2. The facts giving rise this application are that on 19.7.2005 while the petitioner, an employee of a Company namely, M/s Anup Melleables, of which the informant is the Managing Director, left for Giridih on a car bearing No. JH 10G 1161, being driven by the driver-Kanhaiya Choudhary, to attend a case at Giridih Civil Court, but they never reached there and, therefore, the informant first thought about any mishap being taken, but when the informant did not find any trace of them, he suspected that both of them may have been kidnapped for the purpose of ransom and, therefore, he lodged a case before Govindpur Police Station, which was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2005 under Sections 363, 365 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code on 22.7.2005. After a couple of days, the petitioner made a call to his family members, whereby it was informed that the abductors have been demanding ransom. After a week, it happened so that Nepal Police, on getting information that there had been a bomb explosion in some locality, came over there and found that the petitioner and other person had been kept confined by the abductors and got them released from the captivity and arrested three persons namely, Pintu Mishra @ Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Vidhya Choudhary and Raja @ Raj Kumar Singh. Nepal Police also came to know about the involvement of the other accused namely, Sonu @ Bhushan Singh and Arun Kumar Singh, but they succeeded in taking their heels and then Nepal Police informed about the said incidence to Dhanbad Police and, therefore, Dhanbad Police went to Birganj (Nepal) and brought the petitioner and Kanhaiya Choudhary to Dhanbad where their statements were recorded in which they disclosed the manner in which they were abducted. Thereafter, on 14.10.2005 Dhanbad Police made a prayer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for issuance of production warrant against those three persons so that they be remanded in the case and the said prayer was allowed. Thereafter, on 14.10.2005 Dhanbad Police made a prayer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for issuance of production warrant against those three persons so that they be remanded in the case and the said prayer was allowed. However, some mistakes were there in the production warrant and, therefore, the police on 21.12.2005 made a prayer for rectification of the mistakes appearing in the production warrant. However, on the very next date i.e. on 22.12.2005, the Investigating Officer made a prayer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for transferring the case to Giridih as according to it, place of occurrence was falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Giridih, which prayer was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. When the record was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, he passed an order on 4.3.2006 for sending the records back to Dhanbad Police, as Govindpur Police has already proceeded with the investigation. Pursuant to that order, record was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Thereupon, the Investigating Officer made a prayer for time so that he may file a revision application against the order, under which the case was sent back to Dhanbad Police. However, no such step was taken and then the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 12.5.2006 directed Govindpur Police to investigate the case without further delay, but according to the petitioner, Govindpur Police did not make any attempt to get the accused persons remanded in this case and to trace out the car in which the petitioner was traveling and the other car with the help of which the petitioner and Kanhaiya Choudhary had been abducted and these circumstances, according to the petitioner, were enough to show that the Investigating Officer was never serious in investigating the case properly and, therefore, the petitioner moved •before this Court by filing a writ application bearing W.P.(Cr.) No. 98 of 2006 praying therein to direct the Investigating Officer to make proper investigation. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that right from beginning, the investigating agency took the matter so casually that for years together the accused persons could not be remanded in this case and at one stage, the Investigating Officer by taking plea that the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Giridih District moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for transferring the case to the Court of Giridih and the Investigating Officer even succeeded in his attempt, but all efforts taken by the Investigating Officer got frustrated when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih sent back the records again to Dhanbad. Thus, with this kind of attitude shown by the Investigating Officer towards the investigation, one is quite apprehensive that there may not be fair investigation of the case and that the Investigating Officer has still not been able to locate the vehicle in which the petitioner was going with his driver nor the vehicle, which was used in the commission of offence of kidnapping, was recovered and under these situations, investigation of the case be directed to be taken over by the C.S.1. particularly when the matter has crossed the International boundary, as the victims were recovered from the other country (Nepal). 4. However, from the counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit as also from the Intervention Petition, filed on behalf of the Interveners-Asim Kumar Agarwalla & Anup Agarwalla, it does appear that when the Nepal Police recovered the victims from the captivity of the abductors, it informed about this fact to Dhanbad police and then Dhanbad Police brought both the victims, petitioner and Kanhaiya Choudhary, back to Dhanbad where their statements were recorded and then under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad as also Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., investigation was made and the Investigating Officer could know the name of the accused whose hands were there in the commission of offence of kidnapping for ransom and after collecting the materials Charge-sheet No. 162 of 2008 dated 30.6.2008 was submitted against Pintu Mishra @ Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh. Subsequently Supplementary Charge-sheet No. 32 of 2009 dated 14.2.2009 was submitted against Vidhya Choudhary as well as Nidhu Sharma and Kaushal Singh and both of them were shown to be dead. Subsequently Supplementary Charge-sheet No. 32 of 2009 dated 14.2.2009 was submitted against Vidhya Choudhary as well as Nidhu Sharma and Kaushal Singh and both of them were shown to be dead. Lastly, third Supplementary Charge-sheet No. 38 of 2009 was submitted on 23.2.2009 against Raja @ Raj Kumar Singh showing him absconder as also against Sonu @ Shushan Singh and Satish Singh showing them as unverified, meaning thereby their whereabouts could not be located. 5. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the parties, it can be said that there may be some lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, but certainly it cannot be said that there has been absolute inaction on the part of the investigating agency and that nothing has been brought on- record to show that the investigation was influenced by some interested persons. . 6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason now to direct the C.B.1. to take over the matter for fresh investigation/ further investigation particularly when the charge-sheet has already been submitted and on submission of the charge-sheet, the protest petition has also been lodged. 7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find it a fit case for giving direction to the C.B.1. to take up the matter for further investigation. 8. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.