Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 September, 2011
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15145 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Shahi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Deoria in Case No. 214 of 2011, Raj Kumar Vs. Samodh & others, under Section 304B, 201 IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, District- Deoria and also to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to act in accordance with law as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (60) ACC 689.
The petitioner is the complainant in Crime No. 314 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Rudrapur, District- Deoria.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the case is not being investigated by the police in a fair manner and still the statements of the complainant and the witnesses have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses were filed before the C.J.M., Deoria with a prayer to forward the same to the Investigating Officer but the prayer has been rejected vide order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the C.J.M. Deoria on the ground that the complainant himself may produce his affidavit before the competent authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (60) ACC 689, wherein in para no. 24, the following has been observed :-
"In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision".
In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is obvious that it is a duty of the Magistrate to ensure that investigation is done impartially and in a fair manner. When the complainant alleged that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, the Magistrate could have forwarded the affidavits filed on behalf of the revisionist to the Investigating Officer. The Magistrate cannot wash his hands of the case after passing an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
In these circumstances, the order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the C.J.M., Deoria is quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to forward the affidavits filed by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer and to ensure fair investigation. The petitioner may also approach the Higher Police Authorities for redressal of his grievance.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.9.2011
KU
