Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Jain vs The State Of M.P. on 15 March, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
MCRC 35921 of 2020
Deepak Jain vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dated :15/03/2021
Shri Vivek Mishra, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri RB Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/
State.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:-
''(i) That an appropriate direction or order for making fair and impartial investigation from the CID or any other senior authority of an investigating agency.
(ii) The respondent authority may kindly be directed to seized the questioned goods and materials & documents with regard case of the petitioner in the investigation and the said so called documents be sent for appropriate examination regarding forgery.
(iii) The respondents authority may kindly be directed to arrest the accused so that, they may stay away from temper the evidence and threaten the applicant and his family.
(iv) The respondents authority may kindly be directed to follow the procedure of Cr.P.C. specifically of Chapter VI.
(v) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, kindly granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.'' It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior by order dated 13/03/2021 has placed ASI, Shri Ramendra Singh Sengar, Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior under suspension for making false entry in Rojnamcha Sanha and for not making proper investigation.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2
MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP It is not out of place to mention here that ASI, Ramendra Singh Sengar has already submitted his reply before this Court and has specifically admitted that he had made a wrong statement before this Court with regard to making a telephonic call to the accused/suspect, as mentioned in the Rojnamcha Sanha.
It is really unfortunate that the Police Officers, in stead of making any investigation, are writing false Rojnamcha Sanha to show that they are not sitting idle in the investigation but in fact, nothing is being done by them.
Be that as it may.
It is for the Police Department to correct its house. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the provision of Section 173(1) of CrPC which requires the completion of investigation as early as possible without any unnecessary delay.
It is the case of the applicant that on his report, Crime No.27/2016 was registered by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. As the applicant has been defrauded to the tune of Rs.33 lacs by Sukuma Export Company Limited as it did not supply 33 metric tonnes of oil in spite of receipt of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP entire agreed amount. Since the applicant was of the view that the Police is not taking any action, accordingly, he filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC which was registered as MCRC 1244 of 2016 for early conclusion of the investigation. This Court by order dated 03/05/2016 disposed of the application with following observations:-
''7. It is apparent from the case diary that investigation is running slow and no proper effect has been taken by the Investing Officer to conduct the investigation. After considering all the facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and preferably within a month and file final report before the competent Court without any fail.'' Thereafter, it appears that the police, after concluding the investigation, filed the Closure Report, which was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 03/09/2016, with a direction to further investigate the matter. Thereafter, it appears that the Investigating Officer did not take any interest in the matter and accordingly, Writ Petition No.1831/2017 was filed, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10/04/2017, with a direction to the respondents to conclude the investigation expeditiously after hearing all the affected parties and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law.
Unfortunately, the order passed by the High Court also THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP fell in deaf years and the police authorities had already decided that they will not proceed in the investigation. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was disposed of by the Magistrate by order dated 02/06/2018 by issuing certain directions to the police.
Unfortunately, thereafter also, the police did not do anything and the manner in which the investigation was handled by the police, has already been considered by this Court in detail, by order dated 16/02/2021. The relevant part of order dated 16/02/2021 is being reproduced for ready reference, which is as under :-
''Closure report was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 03.09.2016 and thereafter the case diary was opened for the first time on 27.12.2016 and except referring to the order of the Magistrate, nothing more was done. Thereafter, the case diary was opened on 23.03.2017 and it is mentioned that permission has been sought from the Superintendent of Police for sending the Investigating Officer to another State and further action will be taken after the receipt of the permission. On 18.08.2017, the Investigating Officer proceeded for Bombay. The next case diary proceeding is dated 21.08.2017 and in that case diary proceeding, steps which were taken by the Investigating Officer at Bombay have been mentioned. The next case diary proceeding is dated 28.08.2017, in which it is merely mentioned that further investigation will be done after taking information from the complainant regarding the defence taken by the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP suspects. The next case diary proceeding is dated 05.09.2017, in which it is mentioned that as the complainant was not found, therefore, further investigation shall be done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 23.09.2017, in which it is mentioned that on various occasions, the complainant was informed telephonically, but he did not appear and, therefore, further investigation would be done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 14.10.2019, in which it is merely mentioned that further action shall be taken as per the directions given by the Magistrate. The next case diary proceeding is dated 04.11.2017, according to which, supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded who had specifically stated that in spite of making payment of entire quantity of 500 metric tons, suspects have not given the supply of 33 metric tons. The next case diary proceeding is dated 14.11.2017, in which summary of the previous investigation has been mentioned, but nothing more was done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 16.12.2018, i.e., after more than one year, in which it was merely mentioned that further investigation would be done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 03.05.2019, i.e., after five months, in which it is mentioned that for interrogation of the suspects, permission from the Senior Police Officers would be obtained. The next case diary proceeding is dated 22.11.2019, i.e., after six months, in which it is mentioned that the complainant was interrogated and further investigation shall be done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 22.03.2020, i.e., after four months, in which it was merely mentioned that further investigation would be done. The next case diary proceeding is dated 28.04.2020, in which it is mentioned that an attempt was made to contact the suspects, however, they could not be contacted. Another case diary proceeding, which is verbatim reproduction of case diary proceeding dated 28.04.2020, was recorded on 27.05.2020, in which it is mentioned that the suspects could not THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP be contacted. When it was enquired from the Investigating Officer that in what manner he tried to contact the suspects, then he said that he tried to contact from his mobile phone on the mobile numbers of the suspects. When the Investigating Officer was directed to point out the mobile phone numbers of the suspects, then he kept quite. Thus, it was clear that the Investigating Officer was not aware of the mobile phone numbers of the suspects, but still it was wrongly mentioned that he tried to contact the suspects, but he could not contact them. When the Investigating Officer found that he is in a fix, then he admitted that he never tried to contact the suspects and the said entries made in the case diary proceeding dated 28.04.2020 and 27.05.2020 are false. The another case diary proceeding is dated 29.06.2020, in which it is mentioned that an attempt was made to contact the complainant, but he could not be contacted and further investigation shall be conducted after enquiring about the matter. The next case diary proceeding is dated 26.08.2020, according to which, the details of the suspects were sought from the complainant who informed that the information shall be given at a later stage. Then the next case diary proceeding dated 28.10.2020 is verbatim the same. It appears that in the meanwhile, the Police received an information from the office of Additional Advocate General, Gwalior that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed, therefore, it was submitted by the Investigating Officer that an E-mail was sent to the suspects on 27.12.2020. It also appears that thereafter one ASI Prabha Verma was sent to Mumbai for collecting information from Suvendu Rath, Sukma Export Limited, Mumbai who returned back with the same defence, which was taken by the suspects at the earliest and it was not accepted by the Magistrate. The case diary also contains a letter dated 26.12.2020 written by Additional Superintendent of Police (Centre / Traffic), Gwalior, mentioning the dates on which THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP the diary was opened by the different Investigating Officers. Thus, it is clear that the present Investigating Officer, who took over the charge on 03.05.2019 did not do anything except by making false averments in the case diary. '' It is not out of place to mention here that on the very same day i.e. 16/02/2021, Shri Prashant Yadav, SHO had appeared before this Court and had made a categorical statement that after his joining in the concerning police station, on five occasions, Crime Control meeting was convened by the Superintendent of Police and on every occasion he was directed to conclude the investigation.
Accordingly, not only ASI Ramendra Singh Sengar, was directed to submit his reply with regard to making false entries in Rojnamcha Sanha mentioned by him in the case diary but the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior was also directed to point out as to whether the violation of his direction given to SHO, Bahodapur, District Gwalior to complete the investigation as early as possible was violated by SHO, Bahodapur, District Gwalior or not, and whether it amounts to dereliction of duty or not ? Further, this conduct of SHO, Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior and the Investigating Officer is violative of Section 173(1) of CrPC or not ?
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8
MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior has also submitted its report that the Town Inspector, Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior did not follow the directions given by the Superintendent of Police and did not make any investigation plan and, therefore, it shows the dereliction of his duty and accordingly, a suitable action against him has been proposed and the matter has been forwarded to IG, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior and now, a SIT has been constituted by order dated 20/02/2021. However, the reply filed by Superintendent of Police is completely silent on the question as to whether the conduct of SHO, Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior as well as the Investigating Officer is violative of Section 173(1) of CrPC or not ?
Be that as it may. But, the manner in which the investigation has been handled by the police authorities depicts a very sorry state of affairs in the District of Gwalior. Further, on 10/03/2021 also, the new Investigating Officer has made a statement that Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries Terminal, Campus Kandla, Gujarat has also admitted that the applicant had purchased oil through Sukuma Export Company Limited and required quantity is lying with the said Company and accordingly, it has been seized and has been handed over THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 9 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP on Supurdagi to Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries Terminal, Campus Kandla, Gujarat.
Today, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that some documents have been sought from the complainant and as soon as they are provided, the investigation would be completed and Final Report would be filed.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was taken by the police party to Bombay, where he stayed there for five days and as the accused persons were not found there, therefore, in the presence of Officers of Sukuma Export Company Limited, the absconsion report (Panchnama) was prepared. Further, it is submitted by Shri Mishra, that no letter has been received from the Investigating Officer requiring any documents. However, it is submitted that as soon as any more demand of documents is made by the Investigating Officer, then those documents shall be provided to him.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion since the investigation has already reached to the last stage, accordingly, in case if some more documents are required, then the information shall be given by the Investigating Officer to the complainant and the complainant is THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 10 MCRC 35921 of 2020 Deepak Jain vs. State of MP directed to supply all the documents to the investigating officer so demanded by him without any further delay. The respondents are directed to complete the investigation within a period of two months from today and to file the Final Report (Closure report or charge sheet) immediately without any further delay. Any further delay will be viewed with all seriousness and would also be considered as dereliction of duty and violation of the directions given by the High Court on two occasions as well as the present directions and the directions given by Magistrate while dismissing their Closure Report as well as subsequently on 02/06/2018.
With aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2021.03.16 18:19:25 +05'30'