Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 683 (JHR)

Krishna Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-11

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 930 of 2015 including the order dated 3.3.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 379, 506, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint case does not contain any recital of the complainant approaching the police station or on account of the refusal of the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to register the case for informing the police in terms of Rule 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It has also been stated that since Rule 5 is a statutory provision and since the same has not been followed prior to institution of the complaint case, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that the primary concentration has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to Rule 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. 6. Rule 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules reads as follows:- "5. Information to Police Officer-in-charge of a Police Station.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of an offence under the Act, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the information, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the persons giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be maintained by that police station. (2) A copy of the information as so• recorded under sub-rule under Sections 25(1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, above shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (2) A copy of the information as so• recorded under sub-rule under Sections 25(1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, above shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-rule under Sections 25(1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a 'police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that police station." 7. The gist of the said provision would reveal about the information given to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station with respect to the commission of offence under the Act and if any person is aggrieved of the refusal on the part of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to record such information, the substance of such information may be sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who after investigation either by himself or through the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make the order in writing to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that Police Station. Rule 5(3) thus reveals that an information which is to be given to the Superintendent of Police on account of refusal on the part of the Officer-in-charge of the particular Police Station not to register such information given by the aggrieved person may send the same to the Superintendent of Police. The provision thus is not mandatory in nature. It was not incumbent upon the complainant to approach the Superintendent of Police or for that matter, register the information before the concerned Police Station. The complainant has the liberty to file complaint case straightway without approaching the police. Even if no mention has been made about the complainant having not approached the police, such by itself would not lead the quashment of the criminal proceeding. The complainant has the liberty to file complaint case straightway without approaching the police. Even if no mention has been made about the complainant having not approached the police, such by itself would not lead the quashment of the criminal proceeding. Rule 5, therefore, is merely directory in nature and if an act on the part of the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station is not conducive to the cause of the complainant, it is the choice of the complainant to send such information to the Superintendent of Police. Such circumstances, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can lead this court to conclude that Rule 5 is a mandatory provision and has to be followed and such fact has to be noted down in the complaint petition. 8. In view of the findings recorded above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to Rule 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules having not been followed is negated. 9. Consequent to the aforesaid findings, there being no reason to interfere in the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 930 of 2015, I am not inclined to entrain (sic-entertain?) this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.