The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Inspector General of Police has no jurisdiction to stay any criminal proceeding pending in a Court of Law, as per Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. This criminal writ proceeding has been suo motu initiated on the report of the Registrar General dated 7.10.2006. It appears that on the basis of a news item published in the newspaper dated 6.10.2006 mentioning that the A.C.J.M., Garhwa, Shri B.K. Mishra has recalled the warrant of arrest issued against the accused of Meral P.S. Case No. 89/2006, Bhawnathpur. P.S. Case No. 132/2005 and Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 53/2006.

2. The records of all the aforesaid three cases were called for. We have perused the records. It appears that on the basis of the requisition filed in the Court by the Investigating officers of all the aforesaid three cases, warrants of arrest were issued against the non-appearing accused persons. It further appears that accused Bhanu Pratap Shahi, MLA. Bhawnathpur constituency, is accused along with others in all the three cases. It further appears that in one of the cases i.e. Bhawnathpur P.S. Case. 53/2006 the accused Shri Shahi moved for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Garhwa in A.B.P. No. 195 of 2006 which was rejected.

3. From further perusal of the records of all the three cases, it appears that the warrants of arrest were returned by the I.Os on the basis that the investigation of all the cases have been stayed by the Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi. The CJM, on that basis recorded orders in all three cases "Seen keep it on record. W/A seized." Further, on the basis of the petition of the I.O. filed in Bhawnathpur PS. Case No. 132/2005 stating that the further proceeding of the case has been stayed by the I.G., he too stayed the further proceedings of Bhawnathpur PS. Case No. 132/2005.

4. Mr. S.B. Godadia, Advocate General, who represents the State says that the copies of all the papers have been received by him only today. This Court is too much pained to see that on the basis of the alleged order of the Inspector General of Police staying the investigation of all the aforesaid three cases, the I.Os filed requisitions stating that warrant of arrest is being returned because of the fact that the investigation of the cases have been stayed by the I.G. Ranchi.

5. On the very face of the record, we find that the I.G. has not no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the criminal cases in which warrant of arrest have already been issued against the accused persons. We express our deep displeasure on the conduct of the Inspector General. In view of Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed: The I.G. has got no jurisdiction at all to stay any criminal proceeding pending in a Court of Law.

6. From the circumstances and the manner in which the matter has proceeded, it appears that all aforesaid acts have been done hurriedly and without application of mind.

7. Learned Advocate General assures this Court that he will collect all the essential papers and records and go through it in order to assist this Court effectively for the purpose to come to a right conclusion.

8. Since all the I.Os. filed requisition before the Court returning the warrant of arrest on the directives of the I.G. it would be just and proper to direct the I.G., Ranchi, the D.S.P. and the I.O.s concerned with these cases, to appear in person before this Court on the date fixed and file their separate affidavits. Since the matter relates to all the accused persons against whom warrant of arrest were issued, the Office is directed to issue notice to them for their appearance before this Court.

9. Since the order passed by the C.J.M. In-charge seizing the warrant of arrest in all the aforesaid three cases and staying the further proceeding of Bhawanathpur PS case No. 132/05 has been passed hurriedly and in violation of the provisions of Section 70 CrPC, the Registry is directed to call for an explanation from the officer concerned who has passed orders on 5.10.2006 in the aforesaid thre