Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 579 (PAT)

Anil Kumar @ Anil Singh v. State of Bihar

2015-04-09

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2015
Judgment Heard. 2. The proceedings has to be quashed as may appear necessitated by the following facts. 3. Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2009 under various sections including section 307of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Parties compromised. The police was so upset on the compromise between the parties that it drew up the First Information Report of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2009 under sections 182, 193, 195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The most disturbing aspect of the lodging of the First Information Report was that the very Investigating Officer of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2009 had positioned himself as an informant and had instituted the case. 4. The Court shall only refer to section 195 Cr.P.C. which expressly bars the so called investigation in Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2009. A final form under sections 182, 193, 195 and 2011 of the Indian Penal Code was filed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada by order passed on 23.08.2011 proceeded to take cognizance of the said offences after perusing the police report. 5. The Court refers to section 195 Cr.P.C. which bars taking cognizance of offences under sections 172 to 188, 193 to 196 and 211 also except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Thus, the very taking cognizance of offences under sections 182, 193, 195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the police report is out of the bonds of the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. That order falling extremely short of section 195 Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed. The proceedings as such of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2009 stands terminated in the light of the present order. 6. This petition is allowed. 7. The court was initially shocked on the behaviour of the police officer but was perturbed to find that an officer of the judiciary working as Chief Judicial Magistrate was also not acting as per the Code of Criminal Procedure when he was ignoring the direction of law contained in section 195 Cr.P.C. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ], the Supreme Court had pointed out that summoning a person to stand trial was a serious business and before any Magistrate had proceeded to issue summons, he must appreciate the facts in its proper perspective. A judge of any rank is supposed to appreciate it in the light of the provisions of law which create different jurisdictions and vests powers in them for proceeding in a particular manner. The order speaks in volume about the lack of sensitivity in the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada who had passed the order on 23.08.2011 in Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2009. 8. The Registry of this Court shall identify the officer and issue a notice to show-cause annexing therewith a copy of the present judgment calling upon him to explain as to why his lack of appropriate knowledge of law and further lack of the appropriate temper of being a judicial officer should not be entered into his personal record. As soon as the explanation is obtained by the Registry on or before the 22nd of June, 2015, the same shall be placed before me in my Chambers for obtaining further orders. If any matter is pending as regards the further progression in the career of the officer that should not be taken up by any Committee of the Court till I finally decide the issue. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the D.G.P., Bihar, Patna who is supposed to take appropriate action against S.I. Kameshwar Paswan who had drawn up the First Information Report against the provisions of law and the purpose could never had been otherwise than to harass an innocent citizen of India. Appropriate disciplinary action is supposed to be initiated against S.I. Kameshwar Paswan with a report to this Court.