Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Arvind Srivastava, J.
Ajit Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar And Others - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1677 of 2019 (Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna)
Decided On : 19-02-2020
Mr.Pranav Kumar, for the Appellant; Mr.Sheo Shankar Prasad, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 73, 82 and 83 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Issuance of arrest warrant and publication of proclamation – Recording of reasons is mandatory – Satisfaction of court must be a subjective satisfaction before passing an order for publication of proclamation – Court must have some basis to take a view that accused person is absconding and/or that he is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed – For this purpose, Investigating Officer is required to place on record steps taken by him to arrest accused person – Impugned order on face of it, suffers from infirmity – Impugned order set aside and A.C.J.M. directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with Section 82 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 10 to 13)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to institute an F.I.R. and take action against the respondent no. 5.
3. It is submitted that petitioner took a flat for 11 months on basis of lease deed executed between him and the flat owner. After about fifteen days from the date he took possession of the flat one, respondent no. 5 threatened him to vacate the flat otherwise to be ready to face dire consequences. On 08.08.2019, respondent no. 5 entered into
4. his flat abused him and threatened to vacate the flat otherwise he will be murdered. Petitioner reported the matter to S.H.O. Airport Police Station, Patna, but no action was taken. Thereafter petitioner submitted an application (Annexure-4) to the Sr. S.P., Patna complaining against the S.H.O. The respondent no. 5, on getting knowledge about the complain made by the petitioner, ousted him from his flat and locked the same, but no protection was provided by the police. It is further submitted that the accused persons are still moving freely without any fear and the petitioner is on road.
5. At the outset, this Court may advert to the scope of interference by this Court in matters of police investigation which falls within the exclusive domain of the executive, as laid down in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409. The guiding principles and procedure to be followed in cases of failure by the police to registered an FIR or if proper investigation is not being conducted by the police after registering an FIR, have been enunciated in lucid detail in the said judgment, relevant extracts wherefrom may be reproduced fruitfully as under :-
'The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.'
6. In the above circumstances and having regard to the above exposition of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , as it has not been satisfactorily shown that the petitioner has taken appropriate steps for redressal of his grievances.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
