Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3368
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Shashi Kant, JJ.
Rina Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10792 of 2015
Decided On : 06-07-2015
For the Petitioner:- Rohit Pandey.
For the Respondent:- A.G.A.
The mandatory registration of a report when information of a cognizable offence is given to the police, the need for fair and scientific investigation, and concerns about the deteriorating law and order situation in the State of U.P.
Headnote:
Investigation - Transfer of Investigation - 3(1)XII SC/ST Act, 376, 506 I.P.C. - Roop Ram Vs. State of U.P. 2009(5) ADJ 707, Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., 2014(2) SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to transfer the investigation of a case involving rape and other criminal charges from the present Investigating Officer to another officer due to bias and lack of fair investigation. The petitioner's statement confirmed the offence of rape committed by the accused, and despite this, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report exonerating the accused. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report and directed for further investigation. The Investigating Officer's conduct was questioned, and the Court expressed concerns about the police's handling of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the conduct of the Investigating Officer was biased and inclined to protect the accused. It criticized the police's failure to register the report promptly and the lack of fair and scientific investigation. The Court also highlighted the police's general apathy and laxity in handling cases involving heinous crimes, expressing concerns about the deteriorating law and order situation in the State of U.P.
Issues: Bias and lack of fair investigation by the Investigating Officer, failure to promptly register the report, and general apathy and laxity in handling cases involving heinous crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the mandatory registration of a report when information of a cognizable offence is given to the police, as established in Roop Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. It also highlighted the need for fair and scientific investigation, expressing concerns about the deteriorating law and order situation in the State of U.P.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State Government to transfer the inquiry to C.B.C.I.D. and complete the investigation within three months. It also directed the State Government to take appropriate steps to make the U.P. Police Force a real law and order enforcing machinery and to ensure compliance with the Court's directions regarding the registration of first information reports.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Rina Kumari seeking a mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Rampur to transfer investigation of Case Crime no. 278-C/2014, under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)XII SC/ST Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur from the present Investigating Officer, Dr. Tej Veer Singh, Circle Officer, Milak, Rampur to any other officer and to direct a fair investigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner fell victim to criminal act of respondent no. 5, Bal Kishan son of Sohan Lal, who forcibly entered the house of petitioner on 06.05.2014 at about 6.00 pm, and, committed rape at knife point. When she raised alarm, respondent no. 5 ran away, assaulting petitioner. She went to police station but no report was registered, whereupon she had no option but to move application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate. Ultimately, under his order, the report was lodged on 10.06.2014 at 13.00 hours against respondent no. 5.
3. Petitioner's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Investigating Officer only on 07.08.2014 in which she confirmed the offence of rape committed by respondent no. 5 and fortified the information given in first information report. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before Magistrate on 12.09.2014 where also she confirmed her allegations levelled against respondent no. 5. Despite that the Investigating Officer, on the basis of some affidavits of some persons, submitted a final report no. 17 of 2015 on 15.10.2014.
4. The petitioner filed protest petition after receiving notice on 23.02.2015. The Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Rampur heard the matter and making strictures against Investigating Officer, rejected final report. He directed for further investigation in the matter vide order dated 07.04.2015. Since thereafter, the Investigating Officer has not done anything in the matter, being in collusion with respondent no. 5 and, therefore, petitioner apprehend that present Investigating Officer is biased. He is not doing fair and partial inquiry therefore, it should be transferred to some other officer with a further direction to complete it expeditiously.
5. While entertaining above writ petition on 04.05.2015, this Court required the Investigating Officer to appear alongwith case diary to show progress and the kind of investigation he has done in the matter.
6. On 18.05.2015 Dr. Tej Veer Singh, Circle Officer, appeared before this Court. He filed an affidavit, sworn on the same date i.e. 18.05.2015 in which he stated that though the victim, i.e., petitioner and her sister-in-law (Nand), Mamta, both supported first information report, but some independent persons, namely, Brij Lal, Jageer Singh and Mukhtiyar Singh and five others stated that they have not heard any hue and cry and no such incident had taken place. There was a dispute with respect to land over which the alleged 'Gher' was constructed. The accused respondent no. 5 is the real brother of father-in-law of petitioner and was implicated in a false case. The Investigating Officer in para 20, 21 and 22 of his affidavit specifically said as under:
"20. That after doing investigation without being biased in a very fair manner the deponent was of the view that no such incident had taken place rather younger brother of Bal Kishan who is father in law of the informant has launched false prosecution to grab the property of his own brother.
21. That the accused Bal Kishan is 50 years old and has good reputation in the village and none of the independent witnesses have supported the version of the first information report.
22. That the deponent while concluding the investigation gave his specific opinion that from the investigation as done by him in the period of 04 months he could not find any reliable evidence aga
