IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.966 of 2011 Sanjay Kr. Tiwari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advvocate. Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG. ------------------------------- 5 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to AG. Petitioner, happens to be informant of Shahpur P.S. Case No.121 of 2011 who put an allegation against the accused named therein having pounced upon them snatch away their rifles, chain, cash, mobile set as well as brutal assault over the person of Jagbali Mishra who was subsequently lifted to PMCH for treatment, has filed instant petition asking for relief directing the official concerned to apprehend the accused and further to have the statement of witnesses recoded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention it has further been argued that wife of one of the accused happens to be sitting MLA at whose behest the investigation is not being properly conducted nay the statement of the witnesses is being properly recoded. Not only this, the I.O. of the case has not cared to examine injured Jagbali Mishra. It has further been submitted that save and except one accused none has been apprehended. The slackness on the part of investigating officer is further evident from the fact that no legal steps has been taken to procure attendance of the accused or compelled them to have their presence before the court concerned. The occurrence is of month June and up till now 2 no charge sheet has been submitted. Apart from this it has also been brought on record that one of accused Bisheswar Ojha carries chequrred history. In the aforesaid backdrop relying upon decision reported in 2009(9) SCC page-538 it has been submitted that by the action of investigating authority, the constitutional right of the petitioner along with his family members is going to be deprived of and consequent thereupon, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is bound to protect. At the other hand the learned AC to AG submitted that by way of counter affidavit the real theme has been brought up on record which suggests that both the parties are political rival to each other at the local level and during course thereof, they have free fight. Also submitted that on the alleged date of occurrence there was election at local level and that was the reason behind the allegation (in distorted way) whatever been alleged in the First Information Report. Even then, one of the accused has been apprehended. Investigation is going on. The S.P. has himself supervised the case. Also disputed over maintainability of instant petition. The High Courts and the Supreme Courts have been identified as a court to be responsible for preserving at least part- III of the constitution, apart from other which deals with the fundamental right which, at least is necessary for decent peaceful living of a human being more particularly citizen of this country. It should be enforceable under both counts, one should not be deprived of while one should not be maliciously prosecuted. After 3 all this mater has to be investigated when a criminal offence is alleged to have been committed at the hands of delinquent. Once a case is instituted, the police comes into limelight and began to enjoy the powers whatever been vested in it for conduction of impartial investigation. The need for investigation is not for apprehension of accused rather it happens to be with regard to collection of the materials which could justify prosecution of an accused simultaneously will also see innocence of an accused. Along with appearance of the accused. Though the police is only required to proceed with investigation in cognizable offence because, so far non-cognizable offence is concerned, that will commenced only after getting permission from a Magistrate, and apprehending the accused even without having warrant of arrest. The scope of obtaining warrant of arrest from the court concerned is nothing but a preceding step to procure the process as provided under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. with another intermediary provision so prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing investigation, the police is expected to submit police report in accordance with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The basic theme happens to be that there should be urgent hearing, speedy trial, speedy investigation but in the present scenario, it all happens to be just a theoretical aspect which cannot bloom in reality as has been found nipped by so many factors and that happens to be reason behind that the guideline so framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma 4 case later on modified. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, one particular case cannot be identified and chased unless and until its has got a bearing and impact pertaining to its axiom. However, the petitioner has got a legal right to raise plea. The State cannot escape from its responsibility for having the case investigated in impartial way. Times without number it has been held that lethargic approach should be condemned. As such, the S.P., Bhojpur is directed to see that the investigation must be completed at an earliest more preferably within three months from the date of presentation of the order within all feasibility. To ensure the order to be duly complied with, let a copy of this order be served upon learned AC to GP. In case the petitioners have got any grievance, may approach the S.P. or other legal methods are also available before him to be taken up according to own choice. With the aforesaid observation instant petition is disposed of. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)