Patna High Court - Orders
Rakesh Mishra @ Laltun Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 May, 2014
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1180 of 2013
======================================================
1. Rakesh Mishra @ Laltun Mishra S/O Upendra Mishra Resident Of
Village- Rakhwadi, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Madhubani
5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani
6. The Officer In Charge, Rudrapur Police Station, District- Madhubani
7. Sri Rajendra Shukla S/O Not Known To The Petitioner At Present
Working As Assistant Sub Inspector, In-Charge Officer, Rudrapur Police
Station, District- Madhubani
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kripanand Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Namrata Mishra, GA-13
Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to GA-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
4 13-05-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned GA 13.
After going through Annexure-4, contents of FIR of Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 76 dated 24.11.2013, the presence of police officials being prosecution party happens to be on account of implementation of prohibitory order prevailing in terms of Section 144 Cr.P.C. with regard to the land under dispute and that happens to be the reason behind that vide order dated 16.01.2014, counter affidavit has been directed to be filed in the following way:-
" As such, the respondents are directed to file a counter affidavit on this very score and in case there is an order to that effect prevailing on the Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1180 of 2013 (4) dt.13-05-2014 2 alleged date of occurrence dated 24.11.2013, the counter affidavit should contain annexure thereof."
On the contrary, neither the counter affidavit speaks with regard to pendency of a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding relating to the land under dispute nor does it speak with regard to any sort of allegation either orally or written made on behalf of Jibchhi Devi. Not only this, on what basis the police have gone over the so alleged disputed plot coupled with the fact that by having station diary entry with regard to departure for the purpose of maintaining peace as well as law and order have also not been incorporated in the counter affidavit. That means to say prosecution is mull over the issue. Apart from this para-14 has been averred as:-
" It is humbly submitted by the order of S.H.O Rudrapur there is a law and order problem there is an apprehension of breach of the peace the Respondent no. 7 gone to disputed land and by the order of concerned S.H.O, A.S.I went with Police party went to the disputed land in question. While the petitioners, along with other named accused were already present and, Seeing police they attacked on the police force and tired to snatch the official weapons of the Police and injured them badly, and hence, F.I.R. No.- 76 dt. 24.11.13 was logged."
Consequent thereupon, presence of prosecution party at the disputed plot at least gives some sort of collusiveness and only to justify, alleged some sort of assault at the hands of petitioners in the written report will not justify illegal act of prosecution party.
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1180 of 2013 (4) dt.13-05-2014 3
At least, the State machinery is expected to be fair in its conduct while acting upon the grievance of an aggrieved. From the conduct of the prosecution party, as disclosed above, it is apparent that presence of police party over the alleged disputed plot was not at all expected in a manner whereunder they have and further to justify their illegal action, they have purposely and intentionally introduced a theme that a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was there and on account thereof, they have tried to justify their presence at the disputed plot on behalf of Jibchchi Devi. What was occasion to incorporate regarding 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding pending with regard to land under dispute which never been averred in the counter affidavit.
Consequent thereupon, there happens to be no justification for continuance of Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 76/2013 and is accordingly, quashed. Petition is allowed.
The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani is directed to take up the informant and others departmentally and will pass appropriate order in accordance with law intimating the Court within three months.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez