Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 995 (RAJ)

Prakash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-18

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—This is second round of litigation, initiated by the complainant, by way of filing a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that appropriate directions to the investigating agency be issued, while having the investigation monitored by this Court and pass such other orders which are considered necessary in the interest of justice. Earlier the complainant-petitioner had filed a criminal miscellaneous petition (3482/2011) with the prayer that directions be issued to the authorities concerned for taking all necessary steps for speedy investigation in FIR No.28/2009, registered at Police Station CID, Jaipur, CID (SOG), Jaipur and a time limit be fixed for completion of the same. The said miscellaneous petition was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.10.2011 holding that the miscellaneous petition stands disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2. The Additional Director General, CID (SOG), Jaipur was directed to submit the progress report of the case before the Magistrate concerned, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of that order, in FIR No.28/2009, registered at Police Station CID, Jaipur, CID (SOG), failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a criminal contempt petition before the Court. Thereafter, the informant had furnished a copy of the order dated 14.10.2011 to the concerning authorities alongwith the representation. The investigating agency had also filed a progress report dated 24.10.2011 through the investigating officer Shri Kailash Choudhary, Police Inspector (SOG), Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said report, it was stated that the investigation in the matter is continuing and the conclusion shall be forwarded as soon as it is completed. 2. Despite of the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court on 14.10.2011 which was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, the investigation was not completed upto the month of February, 2012. The informant had filed a representation before the Department of Home on 16.2.2012 and also to the office of the Chief Minister. When no heed was paid to the said representations, the informant had thereafter filed the instant miscellaneous petition with the prayers aforementioned. On 20.03.2012, the High Court had issued directions to the investigating officer to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing alongwith the case diary of the investigation in FIR No.28/2009. When no heed was paid to the said representations, the informant had thereafter filed the instant miscellaneous petition with the prayers aforementioned. On 20.03.2012, the High Court had issued directions to the investigating officer to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing alongwith the case diary of the investigation in FIR No.28/2009. The respondents have filed a reply to this miscellaneous petition on 23.03.2012, through the Advocate General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The informant has also filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reiterating the prayer that this Court should monitor the investigation till final conclusion is reached. Further prayer has been made for issuing notices of contempt to certain officers for causing interference in the investigation of the present case. A reply to this miscellaneous Petition was filed by the State of Rajasthan mentioning that the investigation was transferred on 19.03.2012 to CID (CB) as the accused filed complaint. Further, it is stated that the order passed by the High Court on 14.10.2011 did not say that investigation should not be transferred from Special Operation Group. It is noteworthy that in the said reply, at the end, it has been prayed that appropriate orders be passed. During the curse of argument, the learned Additional Advocate General had fairly submitted that the prosecution has no objection to the prayer made by the informant petitioner in the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. In the meanwhile, one of the accused namely Rampal Sharma had filed a criminal miscellaneous petition (2152/2009) praying therein that FIR No.28/2009 registered at Police Station CID (SOG), Jaipur be quashed and set aside. The said miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the High Court on 27.01.2011 and the interim order dated 09.10.2009 was vacated. 4. After lodging of the first information report on 21.07.2009, the Special Operation Group had proceeded with the investigation in a prompt and proper manner by way of recording the statements of witnesses; collecting the relevant documents, etc. The investigation was so continued upto the Month of October, 2009. Later on, after decision of the miscellaneous petition filed by the accused Rampal Sharma in the month of January, 2011, the investigation in the matter proceeded further. The investigating officer had collected more documentary evidence such as the documents, with regard to the property in question; from the bank concerned; from the office of the Sub-Registrar, etc. Later on, after decision of the miscellaneous petition filed by the accused Rampal Sharma in the month of January, 2011, the investigation in the matter proceeded further. The investigating officer had collected more documentary evidence such as the documents, with regard to the property in question; from the bank concerned; from the office of the Sub-Registrar, etc. It was in the month of April, 2011 that a senior officer had issued directions to the investigating officer to seek instructions from him in the matter. However, the investigation continued upto the month of May, 2011. It was on 24.08.2011 that the Superintendent of Police (SOG), probably looking to the fact that the instant case related to the year 2009, had changed the investigating officer and appointed Mr. Kailash Choudhary, an Inspector of Police to investigate the matter with the direction that the same should be completed within 15 days. The new investigating officer promptly took up the matter and collected further relevant evidence and it was in the month of November, 2011, that he had noted in the case diary that on the basis of the investigation made; the statement of the witnesses recorded; the documents collected and available on record, etc., the alleged offence is found to be made out against three persons. Thereafter, nothing further was done. It was on 20.03.2012 that an order came to be passed by the Inspector General of Police (Crime Branch), Rajasthan, from the office of the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Rajasthan, Jaipur that the investigation in the instant case is immediately transferred to the CID (CB). It was also mentioned that keeping in view the instructions received from the office of the Chief Minister, through Inspector General of Police attached to the said office, that the investigation in the matter would be taken up by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB). The case diary of the matter was to be sent to the Headquarters within three days. 5. Subsequently on 22.03.2012, the said Additional Superintendent of Police was also appointed as Officer Incharge for the purpose of present miscellaneous petition pending before the High Court. However on 22.03.2012 itself, the orders passed earlier with regard to transfer of investigation to CID (CB) were cancelled. On 03.04.2012, Mr. 5. Subsequently on 22.03.2012, the said Additional Superintendent of Police was also appointed as Officer Incharge for the purpose of present miscellaneous petition pending before the High Court. However on 22.03.2012 itself, the orders passed earlier with regard to transfer of investigation to CID (CB) were cancelled. On 03.04.2012, Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Inspector (SOG) was appointed as Investigating Officer and he continued as investigating officer, apparently for the reason that after cancellation of transfer of investigation to CID (CB), the matter had come back for investigation before the Special Operation Group. The investigating officer had then investigated the matter further, till 11.04.2012. It is noteworthy that in the factual report submitted by the investigating officer on 21.03.2012 to the Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, he had reiterated his view by mentioning that from the investigation done and the statements of the witnesses as well as the documents available on record, the case with regard to the offence alleged is made out against three persons. From the case diary, it is revealed that the investigation in the matter, as it proceeded at the earlier time, was slowed down and it had rather proceeded in a lethargic manner subsequently, particularly in the year 2011, after the decision of the miscellaneous petition filed by the accused Rampal Sharma. 6. It is the mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 173(1) that every investigation under Chapter XII shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Similar is the spirit of the Constitution of India as envisaged in its various provisions and obviously so because it is right of every citizen to have a case, particularly a criminal case, to be investigated; inquired and tried at the earliest. As it is the right of the accused to have a criminal case decided expeditiously, similar is the right of a victim/ complainant to have the investigation done, on the report lodged by him, immediately and without any delay. Delay in investigation does have a material effect and deep consequence on the result of the same, as for instance, human memory is short and it is likely to be faded out from the mind of the witnesses; it would leave the accused free for a longer time which gives them an opportunity to create hindrance; give threatening to the complainant and his witnesses and also to fabricate documents in their defence. Above all, the persons who are involved in criminal cases, if left loose for a long time, it would give them an occasion to repeat the offence which is definitely a matter of grave concern and against the interest of the society. 7. The report in the instant case was lodged as back as in the year 2009 but the investigation is yet to be completed and conclusion is to be sent to the concerning Magistrate. As stated earlier, fair and prompt investigation is a must and it is to be completed without any unreasonable delay. After considering the facts of the case, since the lodging of the first information report on 21.07.2009, particularly at the Special Police Station i.e. the Special Operation Group which was in fact set up for fair and early investigation of the cases, the investigation in the present case is required to be completed in a speedy manner. But ironically, in the present case, despite of the investigation being with the Special Operation Group, it has not been completed so far and the conclusion of the same is yet to be filed before the Court concerned. A perusal of the case diary also reveals certain other things but this Court is of the view that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to refer them in detail. This Court is conscious of the relevant provisions of law as envisaged under Section 172 Cr.P.C., wherein a case diary is to be used to aid the Court in enquiry and trial, but neither the accused nor his agents are entitled to see it. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to extensively mention about the case diary in this order. 8. After taking into consideration the facts as well as the relevant record of the case in its entirety, it is just and proper; in the fitness of the things and otherwise to secure the ends of justice that this Court should pass appropriate orders with regard to the investigation so that it is concluded immediately and without any further loss of time. The grievance raised by the victim/ informant for the second time, by filing the present miscellaneous petition, with regard to the delay in investigation has substance and the prayer made deserves consideration by this Court. 9. The grievance raised by the victim/ informant for the second time, by filing the present miscellaneous petition, with regard to the delay in investigation has substance and the prayer made deserves consideration by this Court. 9. Consequently, it is just and proper and to secure the ends of justice, the following directions are issued:- (1) that the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur shall see that the investigation in this case arising out of FIR No.28/2009, registered at Police Station CID Jaipur, CID (SOG) is not transferred to any other agency/section of the Rajasthan Police and the conclusion of the investigation is submitted by SOG before the Court concerned, forthwith; (2) that the investigation in the present case shall continue with the Investigating Officer Mr. Kailash Choudhary and he shall not be assigned any other work by any higher authorities, unless he completes the same and the conclusion is submitted before the concerning Court; (3) that the Investigating Officer Mr. Kailash Choudhary shall complete the investigation immediately and the conclusion of the same should be submitted before the court concerned on or before the next date of hearing. List this case for further orders on 27.04.2012. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Additional Director General, ATS, Special Operation Group, Rajasthan Jaipur forthwith.