Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K. Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2018
..1..
MCrC No.5082/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCrC No.5082/2018
(S.K. VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-02-2018
Shri Anup Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.P. Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
Shri Rahul Loda, Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South), Shri Virendra Mishra, CSP, Govindpura, Bhopal and Shri Brijesh Bhargava, SHO, Police Station Piplani District Bhopal are present in person.
It is submitted by counsel for the State that reply is ready and will be filed during the course of the day and for perusal of this Court, a copy of the reply was made available.
After going through the reply, this Court is of the view that no sincere efforts were taken by any of the persons who were earlier posted, either as Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) or Station House Officer, Police Station Piplani, District Bhopal to arrest the accused person. It is submitted by Shri Loda that after joining as Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South), he declared a reward of Rs.3000/- for arrest of the applicant. When he was asked, whether the provisions of Police Regulations are to be given preference over the provisions of CrPC, it was fairly conceded by him that the provisions of CrPC would prevail over the provisions of Police Regulations. It was also conceded by him that he was aware of the fact that there is provision under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC to take coercive steps for securing ..2..
MCrC No.5082/2018the attendance of an absconder but it was admitted that no action was taken by him under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC. It is submitted that now he has initiated proceedings and has called for the details of the property of the applicant. Whether the non- initiation of any proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC and a mere declaration of reward of Rs.3000/- on the earlier point of time was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) or not, is a matter yet to be decided.
The reply which is proposed to be filed by the State does not appear to be very satisfactory. Merely saying that the sincere efforts were made by the police authorities to apprehend the applicant, no plausible explanation or the details of the attempt taken by the police authorities have been mentioned.
During the course of the argument, it was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the submissions made before this Court by the police authorities and the counsel for the State are false. The applicant was never absconding, he was working as Assistant Engineer in BHEL, Bhopal and he was regularly attending his services without any default.
Some of the Roznamchasana (Daily Diary) have been prepared by the police personnel and have been placed on record showing that on some occasions, the police personnel had gone to the house of the applicant and had talks with his wife and daughter but since the whereabouts of the applicant could not be known, therefore, they came back.
..3..
MCrC No.5082/2018In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was all the time regularly doing his job clearly nullifies the Roznamchasana which have been prepared by different police personnel. It appears that no steps, much less effective steps were taken by the police personnel and merely by way of an eyewash, paper work was done, otherwise, there was no reason for the police authorities to arrest the person who is an employee and regularly working till his date of retirement.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the police authorities are trying their level best to arrest the applicant and now all of his mobile phones have been switched off and as per his last location, he was found to be in Sidhi and a police party is still in Sidhi to arrest him and he will be arrested very soon.
It is very astonishing that the police authorities start taking action in a matter only when the senior police officers are summoned in the Court.
From the proposed reply which has been prepared by the State, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) was well aware of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by this Court in MCrC No.15762/2014 and some letters were issued to his subordinates calling for explanation in the matter. However, there is nothing in the reply to indicate that the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) had complied the order dated 25.11.2014 by submitting a report to the Registrar General of this Court within 45 days. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 25.11.2014 ..4..
MCrC No.5082/2018was taken for granted by the police authorities and they were not serious towards the compliance of this order. Simple paper work was done by issuing notice to the authorities. The reply given by those authorities have also been annexed along with the proposed reply in which it is merely mentioned that attempts are being made to arrest the applicant.
From the facts of the present case, it is clear that offence was registered in the year 2011. More than 6 years have passed but in utter disregard to Section 173(1) of CrPC which provides that an Investigating Officer shall conclude the investigation without any undue delay, the Investigating Officer has kept the investigation pending and unfortunately, it is still pending. It is the reflection on the working of the Investigating Officers who are not able to conclude the investigation and come to a conclusion that whether any offence has been made out or not.
When a specific query is put to Town Inspector, Police Station Piplani that whether he had ever taken any action against any accused person under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC during his service tenure or not, then it was replied that in 40-50 cases, he has taken action under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC against the accused persons. When a specific question was put to him that why action has not been taken in the present case, then he could not reply. It was submitted that he has joined as SHO, Police Station Piplani District Bhopal in the month of March, 2017 and in the month of November, 2017, the Investigating Officer has mentioned in the diary proceedings that he has searched the ..5..
MCrC No.5082/2018accused in some areas but he was not found. He has read over the diary proceedings, according to which the I.O. has mentioned that the accused was searched in Vrindavan Nagar, Radhakunj, Bhopal Nagar as well as the office of the society but his whereabouts could not be ascertained. It was submitted by the Town Inspector that the manner in which the diary proceedings have been written, clearly shows that no efforts were made by the I.O. because it is nowhere mentioned that where the accused was searched. It is further submitted that thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) had called the report and he was informed that four accused persons are still absconding and they could not be arrested, therefore, the matter is pending. Thereafter, a proposal was sent by the Police Station Piplani District Bhopal to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) for declaration of reward of Rs.3000/-. It appears that only when the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) took interest in the pending matters, then simple paper work was done by the SHO, Police Station Piplani District Bhopal and a proposal was sent for declaration of reward. The Town Inspector, Police Station Piplani District Bhopal could not reply as to why no proposal for initiating proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC was sent. It is further submitted that this Court by order dated 8.2.2018 had directed that the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) to remain present before this Court and thereafter, on 10.2.2018, two accused persons have been arrested. The manner in which the police have acted swiftly after the ..6..
MCrC No.5082/2018intervention of this Court clearly shows that earlier efforts made by the police were not serious and only paper work was being done in utter violation of the order passed by this Court on 25.11.2014 in MCrC No.15762/2014.
Shri Virendra Kumar Mishra, CSP, Govindpura District Bhopal is also present in person, though he was not summoned by this Court. Since he is present, he was asked, whether he had ever reviewed the case diary of the case after his posting as CSP at Govindpura or not ? It is submitted by him that he was posted in Govindpura in the month of January, 2017, but he fairly conceded that he had never reviewed the case diary of the case. It was fairly conceded by the CSP that it is his duty to supervise the working of the police stations falling within his jurisdiction.
It was informed by Shri Loda that after taking over his charge as S.P., Bhopal (South), he had issued general notices to all his subordinates to inform about the pendency of the investigation as well as for disclosing the causes for not concluding the investigation within reasonable time. It was fairly conceded by S.P., Bhopal (South) that CSP, Govindpura District Bhopal did not send any reply to show cause notice.
It is for the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) to manage the affairs of his office. Why he did not take note of non- responding by the CSP, Govindpura is a matter which has to be seen by himself and for that, we are not concerned about the efficiency/inefficiency of the police officers posted within the jurisdiction of the S.P., Bhopal (South). It is for him to ensure the ..7..
MCrC No.5082/2018law and order and to maintain the discipline within his department. When he is happy with the non-response by the CSP, Govindpura to his general show cause notice, then he himself is responsible for the same.
Be that whatever it may be, one thing is clear that till a serious notice was taken by this Court by order dated 8.2.2018, no steps were taken by the police authorities to arrest the accused persons. Even no step was taken by the police authority to file the final report taking recourse of Section 299 of CrPC. It is submitted by Town Inspector, Police Station Piplani District Bhopal that permission was already sought from S.P., Bhopal (South) for filing the charge sheet by showing the applicant as absconding and permission has been granted on 03.02.2018 however, still the charge sheet could not be filed.
So far as filing of the charge sheet is concerned, this Court has no concern, because it is the prerogative of the police to draw an opinion whether any offence is prima facie made out against the accused or not. This Court is merely concerned about the mandate of Section 173(1) of CrPC which provides that the investigation has to be completed without unnecessary delay. Keeping the investigation pending for six long years without any reasonable reason, cannot be said that the investigating officers were serious towards the investigation.
In the reply which has been proposed by the State, details of certain police officers including the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) who were posted at the relevant point of time ..8..
MCrC No.5082/2018have been mentioned. Since the reply has not been filed so far, therefore, at present, it is not proper to issue any notice to such police officers requiring their reply with regard to the steps taken by them to comply with the order dated 25.11.2014 in MCrC No.15762/2014.
At this stage, it was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (South) that every sincere effort is being made to arrest the applicant.
Be that as it may, it is the statutory duty of the police authorities to act in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the opinion which they have formed after concluding the investigation. This Court is merely concerned with the non- compliance of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed MCrC No.15762/2014.
Since the reply which has been proposed by the State has not been found to be satisfactory, therefore, at the request of learned Government Advocate, some more time is granted to the authorities to file specific reply pointing out the lapses on the part of the police officers.
List this case on 22.2.2018.
The officers present today are directed to remain present on the said date.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2018.02.15 21:02:30 -08'00'