Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 292 (RAJ)

Udai Singh Meena v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-01-31

FARJAND ALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Farjand Ali, J. - The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner who happens to be complainant of this case in connection with FIR No. 501/2021 registered at P.S. Sadar Hindaun for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 379 IPC seeking indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the investigating agency to complete the investigation and to file a supplementary report with the Court concerned, expeditiously. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the accused Balram, Ramveer and Ravikesh. After going through the entire material, it is elucidating that the investigation has been kept pending for accused Sitaram, Likesh, Rajveer and Pappu in charge-sheet No.1/24-11-2021. 3. In this view of the matter, Superintendent of Police, Karauli is directed to supervise the matter personally and adverting to the fact that five months have elapsed but the supplementary report has not been submitted, instruct the IO to do all the needful for completion of the investigation which may include arrest of the remaining accused and to file report of the investigation within 60 days from the receipt of this order. 4. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to show its concern over the fact that there is no time frame for the agency within which the supplementary report has to be submitted, yet this Court is of the firm view that whenever an investigation is kept pending under Sub-clause 8 of 173 Cr.P.C., the same shall have been done or completed within a reasonable time period. Even when the agency does not reach on a legitimate conclusion or shows inability to trace the accused or seek more time to collect the evidence, or to prepare the supplementary report; in all the circumstances, the SHO should have submitted a status report before the concerned Magistrate and should seek further time to continue the investigation. Whenever, an investigation under Sub- clause 8 of 173 Cr.P.C. is kept pending, the same should not be left open for an indefinite period at the caprice and mercy of the investigating agency. Regarding the reasonability of the time period, an analogy can be taken from the provisions contained in Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and the law relating to the Limitations Act. Regarding the reasonability of the time period, an analogy can be taken from the provisions contained in Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and the law relating to the Limitations Act. It would be 60, 90 or 180 days as the case may be, although the court is conscious of the fact that the provision of Section 167 Cr.P.C. are applicable only when the accused is in custody yet, this Court deem it appropriate to fix accountability upon the investigating agency because it is seen that there are several cases wherein by virtue of sub-clause 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C., the investigation has been kept pending and thereafter months and even years are elapsed but no supplementary report or conclusion of the investigation is filed. The concerned Judicial Officers and Police Officers leave their offices on account of their transfer or other reasons. No one pays heed to know about the filing of the complete/supplementary reports after submission of first charge- sheet. It is therefore deemed appropriate to direct all the SHOs across the State of Rajasthan and all judicial officers that whenever a further investigation is kept pending for want of other material or trace of accused or for whatever reasons, it would be incumbent upon the IO/SHO to move an application before the Magistrate/concerned Court to allow the agency to continue the further investigation after 60 days are elapsed from filing of first charge-sheet. The Magistrate; after going through the nature and gravity of the offence and the reasons assigned by the agency while conducting the investigation pending as well as the grounds mentioned in the application seeking further time for investigation, shall pass a reasoned order whether time should be extended or nor for further investigation. If in the opinion of the Magistrate, allowing further time would be found justifiable only then 30 days' further time to conduct the investigation shall be granted. It is made clear that even subsequent thereto, if the needful is not achieved, the agency would be at liberty to file a further application for extension of further time and again the Magistrate after applying its judicial mind would pass an order whether further time should be awarded or not. No further investigation shall be continued without bringing into notice the fact before the Court as stated above. 5. The criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 6. Stay application also stands disposed of.