Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 714 (JHR)

Pranita v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-26

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : Prashant Kumar, J. This writ application has been filed for a direction to get the case investigated by an independent agency like C.I.D. Or under the supervision of higher authority of respondent-State in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 736 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3457 of 2011, dated 17.12.2011. 2. On 29.2.2016, the learned counsel for the State was directed to file counter affidavit and as prayed by him, the case was listed on 28.3.2016. Again on 28.03.2016, on the prayer of State, the case was adjourned for 04.04.2016. On 04.04.2016, when no counter affidavit filed, then the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh was directed to remain physically present in this Court on 11.04.2016 and to show cause why counter affidavit has not been filed. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh filed a show cause on 08.04.2016, wherein at paragraph no. 5, he stated as follows:- “5. That with utmost humility it is submitted that the compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Court could not be ensured at the earliest because of the involvement of the answering respondent in maintenance of law and order problem, particularly in meeting the exigencies caused due to the law and order turbulence in the district. It was the compelling circumstances which prevented the answering respondent to ensure compliance of this Hon'ble Court's order for which the answering respondent with utmost humility tenders unconditional apology." 3. The explanation given by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh at paragraph no-5 of the show cause was not found convincing. Therefore, vide order dated 11.04.2016, the following order passed: “08/11.04.2016 A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 2), wherein at paragraph no. 5, it is stated that he has not complied the order of this Court because he was involved in maintenance of law and order problem, particularly in meeting the exigencies caused due to the law and order turbulence in the district. What type of special law and order problem had arisen, which prevented the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh from complying the order of this Court, has not been stated in the show cause. Sri Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C) submits that he will file detailed show cause stating about the special law and order problem arose in the district of Hazaribagh. Put up this case on 26.04.2016. Sri Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C) submits that he will file detailed show cause stating about the special law and order problem arose in the district of Hazaribagh. Put up this case on 26.04.2016. On that day, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh must remain physically present in this Court.” 4. Then, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh again appeared today and filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein he stated that he received the letter dated 16.01.2016 of Standing Counsel (Land & Ceiling) on 30.01.2016. Thereafter, he gave direction to the Officer-in-charge of Sadar police station, Hazaribagh for obtaining a copy of the writ petition from the office of the learned Advocate, so that an appropriate reply could be filed at the earliest in the interest of justice. Thereafter, he explained as to how he was busy in law and order problem arose in the district of Hazaribagh. He had also stated that he was given additional charge of Koderma district, but he has not given the date on which he received the additional charge of the district Koderma for law and order duty. From the chart given at paragraph no. 4, I find that the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh remained busy in five cases lodged in between 11.2.2016 to 27.03.2016 and because of that, he is not able to comply the order of this Court as stated by him in the previous show cause at paragraph no.5. It is worth mentioning that from perusal of the chart, it appears that he is not busy in between 24.2.2016 to 21.03.2016. This shows that the statement made by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh at paragraph no.5 of the show cause is not correct and in fact he was not so engaged in maintaining the law and order. 5. It is well settled that giving a wrong affidavit in the High Court is serious in nature for which a proceeding for contempt of court can be initiated against the deponent. However, since the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh has tendered unconditional apology in his show cause, therefore, I am taking a lenient view and intimating this fact to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand with a direction to enter the above acts and omissions of the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh in his “Annual Confidential Report”, so that the same may be looked into in future as and when require. 6. 6. It reveals from the counter affidavit filed on 06.04.2016 that the police after completing the investigation, submitted 'Final Form' in this case on 31.07.2015. Under the said circumstance, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application. 7. If the petitioner has any grievance against the 'Final Form' submitted by the police, she may file a protest petition in the learned court below. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. 8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand for needful. Petition disposed of.