IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1035 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2016 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
DEEPAK KUMAR Son of Late Sushil Kumar Sah Resident of Village –
Rohua Rajaram, P.S.- Mushahari, Distt – Muzaffarpur.
… … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Govt. Of
Bihar
2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
4. Superintendent of Police, Khagaria.
5. Narendra Brahmchari Son of Shanti Prakash Resident of Dan Nagar, ward
no. 5, P.S.- Khagaria Town, Distt – Khagariya.
6. Ritambhara @ Richa Yogmayee @ Poonam D/o Narendra Brahmchari.
Resident of Dan Nagar, ward no. 5, P.S.- Khagaria Town, Distt – Khagariya.
… … Respondents
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2019
Defect pointed out by the stamp reporter is ignored.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This application under SectionArticle 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for directing
the respondent no. 2, Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to
order for re-investigation of Mushahari P. S. Case No. 47 of 2017
and Khagariya Town P. S. Case No. 279 of 2016 by a competent
authority.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1035 of 2019 dt.08-07-2019
2/4
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the investigation conducted by the police in
Mushahari P. S. Case No. 47 of 2017 and Khagariya Town P. S.
Case No. 279 of 2016 are perfunctory and erroneous.
5. Having seen the erroneous outcome of the
investigations, the petitioner filed several representations to the
superior police officers highlighting the follies in investigation,
but no action has been taken on the representations filed by the
petitioner. He submitted that in case an order for re-investigation is
not made, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
State submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is totally
misconceived. The cases have been investigated properly and, on
completion of the investigations, the police have already submitted
their report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘SectionCrPC’) before the court concerned and on
perusal of the police report, the respective Magistrates have
already passed order in accordance with law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I
find that in Khagariya Town P. S. Case No.279 of 2016, the
petitioner and his relatives have been made accused in a case
instituted inter alia under Sections 307 and 498A of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1035 of 2019 dt.08-07-2019
3/4Section
Penal Code and Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On
completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on
25.11.2016 finding the allegations made in the first information
report (for short ‘FIR’) to be true. As far as Mushahari P. S. Case
no. 47 of 2017 registered under Sections 457 and Section380 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the same was instituted on the basis of a
written report submitted by the petitioner to the officer-in-charge
of Mushahari Police Station wherein the petitioner alleged that his
wife fled away after taking ornaments, Rs.25,000/- cash and some
papers of the house on 20.04.2015. The police investigated the
case and submitted final form holding the accusation made in the
FIR to be false on 29.12.2017.
8. After submission of the report by the police in
the aforesaid two cases under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, the
respective Magistrates applied their mind and passed order in
accordance with law.
9. In case, the petitioner has any grievance
against the order passed by the court, he can challenge the same in
accordance with law. However, instead of challenging the same, he
has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking re-investigation of the case.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1035 of 2019 dt.08-07-2019
4/4
10. Firstly, SectionCrPC does not contain any provision
whereby a re-investigation into a criminal case can be ordered.
Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC the police have got jurisdiction
to investigate the case further in respect of an offence after a
report under sub-section (2) is forwarded to the Magistrate upon
receipt of further evidence, oral or documentary. However, there is
no provision in the SectionCrPC under which a de novo investigation
wiping out the previous investigation conducted by the police can
be taken up. Secondly, there is no material on record on the basis
of which this Court may come to the conclusion that the
investigations conducted by the police in the aforesaid two police
cases were unfair or tainted. Thirdly, there is nothing on record to
suggest that after conclusion of the investigations in the case, in
question any further evidence, oral or documentary has been
received by the police warranting further investigation of the
cases.
11. For the reasons stated above, the application
being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.07.2019
Transmission Date 11.07.2019