Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 11 August, 2023
1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 268 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 268 of 2020
Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Home Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department (with
Additional Charge of Cyber Crime), Ranchi
4. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Ranchi
5. Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Doranda Police Station,
Ranchi
6. Investigating Officer, Cybercrime Police Station, Ranchi
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
-----
06/11.08.2023 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to
complete the investigation in fair and proper manner with regard to the
complaint lodged on 14.09.2017, which has been registered as Doranda P.S.
Case No.278/2017, dated 29.11.2017, corresponding to G.R. No.6525/2017
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 66A and 66E of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
3. After filing of the writ petition, counter affidavit was called upon and
the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State,
wherein, it has been disclosed that final form has been submitted against
two of the accused persons under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has received very offensive video by the mobile numbers as
disclosed in the contents of the FIR and the police has not investigated the
same and submitted final form without proper enquiry.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent-State draws attention of the Court to different annexures
contained in the writ petition and submits that some of the messages are
with regard to Good Morning and Hi and one photograph of CD is also
there, wherein, it has been written in handwriting very offensive language
against the present Prime Minister of the country and Hindu religion. He
submits that this matter may not be closed here and further direction may
kindly be issued to the State.
6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the messages, which
are annexed with the writ petition and finds that in some of the messages,
Good Morning and Hi have been communicated and one CD is alleged to be
offensive.
7. Normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report
submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it is only further investigation that
can be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. But where the constitutional
court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper
and objective manner. The victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an
alien or total stranger to the criminal trial. Further, not only fair trial but fair
investigation is also part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under
Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, investigation must be fair,
transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.
The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in
a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would
ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere, which is well
settled principle of law. If deficiency in the investigation or prosecution is
visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities, or
covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an
iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty
of the prosecutor as the court to ensure that full and material facts are
brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
8. In the case in hand, the police has investigated the matter and
submitted final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against two of the accused
persons under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from one of the
CD, none of the messages which have been annexed with the writ petition
can be said to be abusive. Further, it has been explained by the learned
counsel for the respondent-State that mobile numbers disclosed in the
complaint, have been examined by the police and two persons have been
found to be residing outside the Sate and after proper investigation, the
final form has been submitted.
9. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that this is not a case for
invoking the power under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Further, the
Court where the matter is pending, can alter the charge at any stage under
Section 216 Cr.P.C. if certain material in the trial comes. The learned court is
not powerless where the matter is pending and if in course of trial,
something comes further, any person can be called by the learned court
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
even speaks that if the evidence has come, there is no need of hearing the
accused persons while calling under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the above facts, this petition is disposed of.
11. It is open to the petitioner to make out his case before the learned
trial court under Sections 216 Cr.P.C., 319 Cr.P.C. and any other Sections, in
accordance with law.
12. Whatever has been discussed herein above, that is position of law
and there is no opinion on the further material in course of trial of the court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
