Chandra Kishore Mandal and Another vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2006. The background facts of the case is that on 19.11.1994 a First Information Report was instituted with regard to dacoity having been committed in the house of the Informant by the present Petitioners and a number of other accused persons. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was submitted on 16.2.1995 with regard to one Ram Lakhan Ram and Rajak Mian.

It appears from the report of the Trial Court that Rajak Mian was put on trial and acquitted of the charges on 7.1.2011. After sixteen years of the occurrence the Trial Court appears to have passed an order on an application of the Investigating Officer directing him to complete the investigation against the present Petitioners and file final form in their regard. The said order was passed on an application of the Investigating Officer to the effect that after he had received charge of the case by mistake due to the non-availability of the case diary he had entered the name of the certain charge-sheeted accused and one Ram Lakhan Ram in the second charge-sheet as well. He also submitted that due to inadvertence the Petitioners'' name could not be entered in the charge-sheet. The Investigating Officer requested that he be permitted to make correction in the charge-sheets and to file final/supplementary charge-sheet with regard to the Petitioners.

The submission of the Petitioners is that even conceding the mistake of the Investigating Officer it was not within the powers of the Trial Court to direct the Investigating Officer to direct completion of the investigation and submit charge-sheet. In fact the application of the Investigating Officer itself requesting for submission of the further charge-sheet was misplaced.

There is no doubt that the control of the investigation lies only with the police/Investigating Agency and the court has no role to play at that stage. It was therefore not proper for the Court to have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to hold further investigation and file a charge-sheet after sixteen years of the occurrence even while the co-accused has been acquitted of the charges. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding so far as it relates to the Petitioners including the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2006 is hereby quashed.