IMPORTANT POINT
When any illegality and/or mala fide action on part of Investigating Authorities, either on its own or at the behest of an interested party, is brought to the notice of the High Court, it will be entitled to intervene to set right the illegality and/or mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities.

Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. One Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi Das of Village Izapur, District Jajpur in the State of Orissa, addressed a letter to the Orissa High Court stating that one Kedar Narayan Parida and 19 others, including his sons, attacked her husband and killed him in the night of 28.3.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. On the basis of a First Information Report, lodged with the Mangalpur Police Station, Mangalpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2007 was registered and on the basis of the said police case, G.R.Case No.468 of 2007 was registered in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur. In her said letter, Kabita Das, who has been made the Respondent No.2 in these proceedings, complained of the fact that though Kedar Narayan Parida was the main accused in the case, only 3 persons out of the 19 named accused persons, had been arrested and that the main accused and his sons were moving freely in the nearby areas and no steps were being taken by the police to apprehend them or to complete the investigation. In fact, in her said letter, Kabita Das prayed for a direction to the police authorities to arrest Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons and to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.

2. The letter written by Kabita Das was registered as Writ Petition (C) No.12626 of 2007 and on 4th October, 2007, the High Court, after recording the facts contained in the complaint, also took on record the detailed instructions which had been received by the Learned Additional Government Advocate from the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur. In the order it was also recorded that the case was under the supervision of one Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS(I), Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who, after examining the witnesses named in the FIR, had come to the conclusion that a case had been made out against all the 19 accused persons. Even then the Investigating Officer arrested only 3 of the 19 accused persons, despite the fact that the polygraph tests performed on the witnesses confirmed the presence of all the 19 accused persons who had participated in the assault with different types of weapons. It was also recorded that out of the 19 accused persons, only 4, namely, Ajaya Kumar Ray @ Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu and Kartika @ Jyotiranjan Sahoo, were charge-sheeted. Charge-sheet had not been filed against the remaining 15 persons, though directions had been given by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, to file charge-sheet against three more persons, namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo @ Mangua, Ashish Kumar Ray and Pranaya Kumar Ray.

3. It appears that despite the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, intervened in the investigation and came to the conclusion that the case could be made out only against 7 persons and that the alleged involvement of the other 12 accused persons named in the FIR needed to be thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, at the intervention of the said officer, filing of charge-sheet against the other 12 accused persons was deferred. The matter was directed to appear on 8.10.2007, on which date the Inspector General of Police, CR, Cuttack, was directed to appear before the Court to furnish an explanation as to why he had intervened in the matter and virtually directed the charge-sheet to be filed only against 7 persons and not against the remaining 12 accused persons.

4. The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhay, filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the case had been supervised by Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS-1, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who had found that the allegations against all the accused persons appeared to be true, and in his supervision note to the Investigating Officer instructed that after the absconding accused persons had been traced he would verify the different pleas and alibis tak