Shabana Begum vs State Of M.P. And Others

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"So it is humbly most respectfully submitted Your Lordship may kind enough pleased to direct the trial court and looking to above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances it is desirable to direct the trial court to proceed the case without waiting for police report and also to decide the petitioner application u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. and section 202 for issuing the search warrant as well as recording the statement of complainant and her witness promptly without any delay within stipulated period which this Hon'ble court may think fit and proper inordinate delay as delay defeat justice."

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that she has filed a private complaint under Sections 392, 395, 397, 375, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC against the respondents on the allegations that on 30/7/2020 when the son of the applicant, namely, Sameer was sitting in his house, at that time the accused Moin Beg called him to discuss some matter at Guda Gudi Ka Naka. Moin Beg is residing in the same locality, therefore, son of the applicant went to Guda Gudi Ka Naka on his bullet motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-07-MD- 3642. Moin Beg and Sameer went for dinner. After sometime, Govind Soni, Aman Sharma and Asfan also reached there and they also had their meals. It is alleged that some intoxicant items were mixed in the food of Sameer and because of some difficulty, he returned back by his motorcycle and he was chased by Moin Beg, Govind Soni, Aman Sharma and Asfan. When Sameer reached near Honda Car Showroom, then Moin Beg and his companions (respondents no.4 to 7) stopped her son at gun point and forcibly took away his gold chain, silver bracelet and a cash of Rs.10,000/- as well as motorcycle. When the applicant alongwith her son went to the police station, then the Station House Officer did not respond. As the SHO was not inclined to register the offence under the pressure of the politicians, therefore, the applicant filed a private complaint, which is being adjourned for the enquiry report. It is submitted that the complaint is pending since 11/9/2020 and the Trial Court is not proceeding under Sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

The question involved in the present case is no more res integra.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Anr. by order dated 25.3.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.44485/2020 has held as under:

This Court, thus, needs to visualize that for how long the Magistrate can keep the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. in a state of suspended animation, when the investigation is getting delayed and charge- sheet is not filed even on expiry of the period of 60 / 90 days or any longer period statutorily provided.

19.1 The answer to this question lies in meaningful interpretation of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

19.2 Sub-section (1) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. obliges the Magistrate to stay the proceedings of enquiry/trial initiated pursuant to complaint u/S.200 Cr.PC., whenever the Magistrate comes to know that police investigation qua the same offence and the same accused is pending. The provision also makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to call for a report from the police in such a situation.

19.3 Sub-section (2) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. deals with the contingency that pursuant to the situation contemplated by Section 210(1) if charge-sheet is filed u/S.173 by the Police and cognizance of offence alleged is taken by the Magistrate against the person who is also accused in the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C., then both the cases i.e. complaint u/S.200 and the charge-sheet filed by Police shall be adjudicated simultaneously by treating both as cases instituted on police report.

19.4 Sub-section (3) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. lastly provides that in case the charge- sheet filed u/S.173 Cr.P.C. is not against a person who is an accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of the offence in charge-sheet filed by the police, then the Magistrate shall proceed with the enquiry/trial originating from complaint filed u/S.200 Cr.P.C.

19.5 The common thread which runs through all the three sub-sections of Section 210 is the foundational presumption that the investigation shall be conducted expeditiously without any unnecessary delay, so that the fate of the proceedings originating from complaint u/S.200 do not hang fire for indefinite period of time. Though this common thread is not expressly provided but can be presumed to exist in the minds of the law-makers from conjunctive reading of Section 210 and Section 167 Cr.P.C.

19.6 Thus, if a complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. is kept pending in a state of suspended animation awaiting the police to file charge-sheet but the police fails to complete investigation expeditiously and keeps it pending for months or years together then the said presumption lying at the foundation of Sec.210 is shaken. Leading to the complainant u/S.200 Cr.P.C., being relegated to a state of uncertainty and procrastination with justice nowhere in sight for victim. 19.7 The complainant who has filed the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. is often the victim of the crime. Pursuant to the amendment in the Cr.P.C. with effect from 2009 (vide Act No. 5 of 2009) victim is conferred with statutory recognition as one of the important stakeholders in the process of criminal justice system. Victim has been given precious rights under amended Cr.P.C. and therefore these rights cannot be made to suffer due to uncertainty and arbitrariness stemming from inaction of the police to complete investigation within reasonable period of time. The right of a victim to seek justice cannot be sacrificed at the alter of omissions, commissions and inaction of the investigating agency. The victim has an independent precious right under the Cr.P.C. not only to prefer a complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. but also to insist expeditious enquiry and trial pursuant to said complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C.

19.8 This avenue u/S.200 Cr.P.C. available to the victim/complainant to seek justice gets blocked and frustrated due to indolence of the police.

To resolve this situation, following guiding principles are laid down in cases of simultaneous filing of Sec.156(3) application and Sec.200 complaint:-

(i) As regards Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. application (alleging only non-registration of FIR), the procedure as per para 15.(4)(A) be followed.

(ii) The Police qua Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. application (alleging improper/delayed investigation simpliciter or along with non-registration of FIR) should not be granted more than 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed.

(iii) If the Police submits the report within 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed, then the Magistrate may pass appropriate directions in accordance with law to either dismiss/dispose of 156(3) application with/without directions by passing a speaking order or to supervise and monitor the investigating process if need arises.

(iv) However, in case the Police fails to submit report within 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed, then the Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. in accordance with Chapter XV & XVI Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the bar in Sec.210 Cr.P.C.

(v) While so proceeding under Chapter XV & XVI Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall keep in mind that as and when police report u/S.173 Cr.P.C. is filed [even after 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed] and cognizance of offence in police report is taken, then the Magistrate shall club the complaint case with the charge-sheet (final report) filed by police and proceed to adjudicate both the cases together treating them to have arisen from police report.

Accordingly, in the conspectus of above discussion, this Court has no option but to invoke its inherent powers to direct as follows:

(i) The learned Magistrate seized with the application u/S.156(3) and complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C is directed to proceed in accordance with the above directions in accordance with law.

(ii) Since the petitioner/complainant has been made to run from pillar to post since last more than one year, the State deserves to be saddled with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) which shall be paid to the petitioner/complainant through digital transfer in his bank account within 30 days of petitioner furnishing necessary bank details to Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.

(iii) The State with an object to reinforce the justice dispensation system is directed to deposit five sets of books (in Hindi language) to the Legal Aid Section of the Registry of this Court within 15 days to be distributed to freshers in the Bar. Each set of books shall contain the following books published by reputed publishers:-

Criminal Major Acts (in hindi language)

CPC (in hindi language)

Constitution of India (in hindi language)

Accordingly, this case is disposed of with a direction to the concerning Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma (supra).

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.