Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babulal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 6 January, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.367/2015
Babulal Sharma son of Shri Sitaram Sharma, aged about 38 years,
resident of Bohara Ki Dhani, Chavand Ka Mand, Shaypura, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
....Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Deputy General of Police,
Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi Sabji Mandi, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate,
Jaipur.
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Amer,
District Jaipur.
4. Mukesh Sharma, A.S.I. & Investigating Officer of FIR No.454 of 2015
Police Station Amer, Jaipur.
5. Siyaram Sharma, Constable, Police Station Amer, District Jaipur.
6. Smt.Sita Devi Sharma wife of Siyaram Sharma,
R/o Village Bhagwanpura, P.S.Andhi, Jaipur at present
R/o Shaypura Bus Stand, Police Station Amer, District Jaipur.
Date of Order ::: 06.01.2017
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
Mr. Amit Jindal, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prakash Thakuria, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Kaptan Singh, ASI Police Station Amer.
The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of FIR No.454/2015 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur against him and his family members for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 341, 323/34 IPC on 23.9.2015 at the instance of Smt. Sita Devi wife of Shri Siya Ram Sharma with the following prayer:-
2
"(1) The investigation of FIR No.454/2015 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur, may kindly be transferred to any other agency like CBI or CID (CB).
(2) The respondents may further be directed to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter.
(3) The respondents No.1 and 2 may also be directed to initiate the departmental action against the respondents No.3 to 5 on account of violating the the provisions of Sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. (4) The Hon'ble Court may kindly initiate suo-moto contempt of court proceedings against the respondents No.3 to 5 on account of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 decided on 2 nd July, 2014. (5) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner"
The contention of petitioner is that prior to registration of aforesaid FIR against him and his family members, he lodged FIR No.221/2015 on 23.5.2015 at the same Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC against some persons named in the FIR and when investigation in that case was not properly undertaken by the then SHO/IO, on complaint being made by him the then SHO/IO of that case was suspended by the competent authority. It is also the case of the petitioner that husband of complainant- Smt.Sita Devi, Shri Siya Ram Sharma was posted as constable in Police Station Amer and he pressurized the petitioner to enter into compromise 3 with the accused-persons named by him in FIR No.221/2015 and when he refused to enter into compromise, in order to pressurize him, present FIR was falsely lodged against him and his family members. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was arrested in the present case in the intervening night of 23.9.2015 and 24.9.2015 at 12.30 a.m. illegally and arbitrarily without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. It was also alleged in the petition that the police wrongly shown his arrest on 24.9.2015 at 4.30 p.m. and he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been released on bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 3.10.2015. As per averment made in the petition, petitioner filed a complaint against Shri Siya Ram Sharma and Smt.Sita Devi-his wife for offences under Sections 166, 166A, 323, 341, 354, 362, 367, 392, 426, 504 and 120-B IPC.
Vide order dated 18.02.2016 Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan was directed to file his report in respect of allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition and in compliance thereof report dated 19.9.2016 has been filed.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record including the report dated 19.9.2016 filed by the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan as well as the evidence collected during the course of investigation in the present case and also the factual report dated 3.10.2016, this Court is of the view that the investigation of FIR 4 No.454/2015 is not required to be transferred to any other investigating agency as after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed in the competent Court and petitioner is entitled to seek appropriate remedy before the Court concerned. As per report dated 19.9.2016, departmental inquiry has already been ordered to be commenced against the concerned police officers in the light of relevant legal provisions and guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, there is no need for this Court to further direct the competent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against the concerned police officers. So far as initiation of suo- moto contempt of Court proceedings against respondents No.3 to 5 as prayed by petitioner in the writ petition on account of failure to comply the provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, this Court do not find it a fit case in which such proceedings are required to be initiated. In the aforesaid case no such guidelines have been issued by Hon'ble Court that in each and every case in which the police officer fails to comply the directions, such proceedings are required to be initiated.
Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J teekam Reserved order.