Md. Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2736 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P. (Cr.) No. 147 of 2021
                  Md. Ali, aged about 35 years, son of Mussaraf Hussain Faridi, resident
                  of village Islampur, P.O. Makhdumpur, P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro
                                                                          ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   The Director General of Police, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its
                  office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
             3.   The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro(T),
                  District- Bokaro
             4.   The Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S.
                  Bokaro (T), District- Bokaro
             5.   The Officer-In-Charge, Balidih P.S., P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro
             6.   Barik Ansari, son of Samsuddin Ansari, Resident of village Haisabattu,
                  P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro
             7.   Abul Ansari, son of Late Ismail Ansari, Resident of village Haisabattu,
                  P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro
             8.   Alam Ansari, son of Aftabuddin Ansari, Resident of village Haisabattu,
                  P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro
             9.   Khurshid Ansari, son of Jallaluddin Ansari, Resident of village
                  Haisabattu, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro       ... Respondents
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P.

-----

04/05.08.2021. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent-State.

This criminal writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing

in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation

arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained

about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter

has been heard.

The prayer in this criminal writ petition is for direction to properly

investigate Balidih P.S. Case No.74 of 2021.

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Spl. P.P. Appearing for the

respondent-State submits that the investigation has already been completed

and the police found the case not true and the police further directed to

institute proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is statutory obligation and duty of police to investigate into crime

and courts normally ought not to interfere and guide investigating agency

as to what manner investigation has to proceed. The jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with

caution, only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in

various judgments.

In view of the aforesaid facts, no relief can be extended to the

petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/