AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on has been filed under Sec(cid:20)on 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.85/2008 registered at Police Sta(cid:20)on Lalsot, District Dausa for offences under Sections 332, 353 IPC.
A coordinate Bench on 07.03.2018 had passed the following order:-
“This court while directing Superintendent of Police, Dausa to file an affidavit, has passed order on 03.07.2014 as under:-
“FIR was registered in the year 2008. Six years are going to elapse, no stay was granted by this court.
Learned Public Prosecutor is not able to acquaint this Court regarding status of the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on. Superintendent of Police, Dausa is directed to file an affidavit regarding the progress made in the present FIR. The affidavit be filed on or before 14th July, 2014. In case on that day i.e. on 14th July, 2014, affidavit is not filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, on the next date, the Superintendent of Police, Dausa shall remain present in this court.
List on 14th July, 2014. Copy of this order be handed over to Mr. NS Dhakar, Learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance.”
Pursuant to it, an affidavit of Shri Anshuman Bhomia s/o Shri Pushkar Du(cid:65) Bhomia, Superintendent of Police, Dausa has been filed on 14.07.2014, which is deposed on even date. Para 5 of this affidavit goes to suggest that it was reported by SHO/IO, Lalsot that “there has been stay in this Criminal Misc. Pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on filed by the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner staying further proceedings by this Hon’ble High Court”, which is contrary to the facts. This averment is not supported with an affidavit or deposi(cid:20)on of concerned SHO/IO. Order dt. 03.07.2014 itself is categorical that no stay was granted by this court.
FIR No. 85/2008 registered for the offences punishable under Sec(cid:20)ons 332, 353 of Indian Penal Code relates to 16.02.2008 and nothing concrete has apparently been done by the Investigating Agency against the accused person/s.
Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a posi(cid:20)on to apprise the court that what is the present status of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on. Affidavit filed by a responsible police official, ranking Superintendent of Police has got false version that there has been a stay, which is contrary to the record.
Let a no(cid:20)ce be issued to concerned Superintendent of Police Shri Anshuman Bhomia s/o Sh. Pushkar Du(cid:65) Bhomia, direc(cid:20)ng to be present in the court on 16.03.2018 to explain the same, since deposition contrary to record amounts to perjury.
List on 16.03.2018. Present status of the investigation be also filed before the court.”
It is a ma(cid:65)er of anguish that inspite of direc(cid:20)ons issued on various dates, inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on has not been concluded (cid:20)ll today even though FIR was registered a decade ago.
Recently in a case pertaining to Jaipur Commissionerate where delay has occurred, this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on No.1141/2018, Tara Chand Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 07.03.2018, had passed the following order:-
“The present pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on has been filed under Sec(cid:20)on 482 Cr.P.C. praying that a direc(cid:20)on be issued to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to conduct fair and impar(cid:20)al inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on in case arising out of FIR No.0161/2017 registered at Police Sta(cid:20)on Jhotwara, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.
Number of pe(cid:20)(cid:20)ons filed under Sec(cid:20)on 482 Cr.P.C. are listed before this Court. It has been observed that without passing any detailed speaking order, on drop of hat, or on the whim and fancy of the supervisory officer, in the midst of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on, when it has reached at a sensi(cid:20)ve stage, inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is changed. Change of the horse midstream is not appreciated. Supervisory officer ought to give reasons as to why inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is required to be changed. Supervisory officer should examine the case diary and taking note of the deficiencies in the investigation should give guidance to the investigating officer as to in which direction, investigation ought to move.
In the present case in par(cid:20)cular, no such procedure was followed. When accused Tara Chand Sharma approached D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on to SHO, Harmada. Later when complainant approached, D.C.P. (West), Jaipur, he transferred the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on to ACP, Jhotwara. Everything should not be done due to the approach made by complainant or accused as it will show the police in poor light, especially when Jaipur Police with the limited infrastructure is performing a yeoman’s job in the city, which is having numerous cases pertaining to property dispute.
Property dispute always has a monetary considera(cid:20)on and consequences. Supervisory officer should be careful and cau(cid:20)ous while changing the investigation officer.
It has been noted that number of (cid:20)mes, inquiry or inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer has been changed. Some(cid:20)mes when accused has been found guilty, on the asking of accused inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer or inquiry officer has been changed some(cid:20)mes when a police officer has recommended that Final Report in nega(cid:20)ve form be submi(cid:65)ed on asking of complainant inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer or inquiry officer is changed. Due to change of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer or inquiry officer not only course of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on change but result too change some(cid:20)mes totally opposite to the earlier
view. Similarly the next officer who is assigned inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on or inquiry formulate contrary view. How many (cid:20)me inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on should be conducted, how many (cid:20)mes result of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on should change, is something on which higher officer i.e. Commissioner of Police should ponder so that trust of the people in the premier inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng agency is not lost. Again and again if inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer or inquiry officer is changed and consequently with the change of officer, report also changes. This it itself lower the image of the police and cause trust deficiet.
In the above context, this Court had asked Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur to remain present in the court.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has stated that un(cid:20)l there are compelling reasons, inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer shall not be changed and if the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is to be changed, a detailed speaking order will be passed giving reasons, poin(cid:20)ng out deficiencies in the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on and reasons shall be spelt as to why inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer ought to be changed. He has also assured this Court that in all pending inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ons, which are more than one year old, report of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall be submi(cid:65)ed within two months a(cid:76)er conclusion of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on in the concerned court of competent jurisdic(cid:20)on from the receipt of cer(cid:20)fied copy of the order. He has submi(cid:65)ed that in case there are compelling reasons, then only under the orders passed by him, extension of (cid:20)me to conclude the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall be given beyond period of two months pertaining to cases where inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on is more than one year old. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has very fairly submitted that investigation ought to be prompt and swift so that alert police officer is able to gather all evidence.
This court appreciate the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur. There is no need to say that if inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is not alert and inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on is not conducted at the earliest, notable leads will be lost and vital pieces of evidence will wither away.
Therefore, in inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on, (cid:20)me is essence. Thus, based on the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, this Court issue following directions:-
(a) That no investigating officer shall be changed untilsupervisory officer pass a detailed speaking order.
(b) That in case supervisory officer come to conclusion tha(cid:20)nves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is to be changed, in the order to be passed, he shall point out deficiencies in the investigation and also give guidance to the officer to whom investigation is to be transferred.
(c) That in all pending cases in the Commissionerate of Jaipur,where the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on is one year old, report of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall be filed with the opinion of the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer in the competent court within two months from receipt of cer(cid:20)fied copy of this order. In case, same cannot be done, extension of (cid:20)me to conclude the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall only be granted by Commissioner of Police by passing a reasoned order.
So far as, present case is concerned, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Commissioner of Police, Jaipur has assured this Court that he will transfer the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on of this case to his office and same shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Addi(cid:20)onal Superintendent of Police. He has assured this Court that report of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on along with the opinion of the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer shall be submi(cid:65)ed in the court of competent jurisdiction within one month from receipt of certified copy of the order.
In view of directions issued above, and assurances given by Commissioner of Police, noted as directions, the present petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance.”
Today, to acquaint the Director General of Police with day-today difficulty which this court face in pe(cid:20)(cid:20)ons under Sec(cid:20)on 482 Cr.P.C. for delay in conclusion of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on, change of Inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng Officers repeatedly and emergence of contradictory findings by the Inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng Officers, a request was made to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to appear in this court.
Today, Shri O.P. Galhotra, Director General of Police, alongwith Shri P.K. Singh, Addi(cid:20)onal Director General of Police, Shri Govind Gupta, Inspector General of Police and Shri Anshuman Bhomiya, Superintendent of Police, Kota City, are present in court.
Shri O.P. Galhotra has assured this court that remedial measures shall be undertaken and a fresh circular will be issued and in case circular to this effect is already issued, they will monitor the pending inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ons in the light of the same. In all delayed inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on, a special officer shall be deputed to monitor the investigation who shall ensure that timely investigation report is submitted in the case.
This court repose trust in the Director General of Police, Rajasthan who has assured that remedial measures shall be taken by the Director General of Police.
Accep(cid:20)ng the assurance given by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, same direc(cid:20)ons as given in the case of Tara Chand Sharma & Anr.
(supra), are hereby also issued as under:-
(a) That no investigating officer shall be changed untilsupervisory officer pass a detailed speaking order.
(b) That in case supervisory officer come to conclusion tha(cid:20)nves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer is to be changed, in the order to be passed, he shall point out deficiencies in the investigation and also give guidance to the officer to whom investigation is to be transferred.
(c) That in all pending cases in the State of Rajasthan, wherethe inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on is one year old, report of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall be filed with the opinion of the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng officer in the competent court within two months from receipt of cer(cid:20)fied copy of this order. In case, same cannot be done, extension of (cid:20)me to conclude the inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on shall only be granted by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District by passing a reasoned order.
So far this case is concerned, the Director General of Police has assured this court that report of inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)on alongwith opinion of the Investigating Officer shall be filed in the court of concerned area Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month.
Learned counsel for the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner has submi(cid:65)ed that the present pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on be disposed of with liberty to the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner to reapproach this court in case report of investigation is required to be assailed.
In view of assurance given by the Head of the Force, no further directions are required and the present petition stands disposed of.