IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1141 of 2007 KAILASH SINGH @ KAILASH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner: Mr.Gopal Shankar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.M.K.Singh,A.C. to A.A.G. 8. 5 20.2.2009 In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for direction to the respondent authority to initiate a proceeding under sections 211 and 182 of the I.P.C. against respondents no.7 for lodging a false case against him being Goraul P.S. Case No.33/05 under section 304 (B)/ 34 of I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act and for further direction to the respondent authorities for lodging an appropriate case against respondent no.8, Usha Kumari, daughter of respondent no.7 for lodging a false case. The facts of the case, in short, are s follows: The respondent no.7, Chandrika Prasad Singh, made a written report to Officer – in Charge of Goraul Police Station stating therein that his daughter was married to Tuntun Singh, son of this petitioner, resident of Vaishali District. On 24.5.2001 it is alleged that the petitioner,s son, Tuntun Singh and others tortured his daughter , Usha Kumari, for want of dowry. On 22.2.2005 he learnt that the accused persons have killed his daughter and have disposed of her dead body. On receipt of the information, the informant went to her matrimonial home in village- Hussain Khurd. The informant alleged that the accused persons had killed her by pressing her neck. In course of investigation the villagers filed 2 application before S.P. Vaishali stating therein that the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner and his family members in a false case of dowry death. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet being first Charge sheet No.194/05 dated 22.11.05 under sections 364,304(B) and 201/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his son, Tuntun Singh. After sometime the police submitted second charge sheet bearing No.110/06 dated 30.9.2006 against Banarsi Devi, wife of the petitioner. The C.J.M., Muzaffarpur took cognizance of offence under sections 364 and 304 (B) of I.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Some of the accused persons, namely, Tuntun Singh as well as this petitioner were put behind the bar also. The facts which have unfolded is quite shocking. It appeared like ghost of Usha Kumari resurfacing in person. The victim girl, Usha Kumari, alleged to have been murdered was not dead and in fact was arrested by the G.R.P., Howrah and subsequently produced before C.J.M., Howrah on 25.2.2005. She did not make any allegation against this petitioner and his family members. She was sent to Remand Home at Gaighat consequent to order of S.D.J.M., Howrah. Pursuant to direction of C.J.M., Hajipur, the statement of girl was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 20.6.2007. The C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur vide his order dated 17.8.07 released the girl on personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with an undertaking that she would present herself as and when she required 3 by the court or the I.O. Having realized that a case has been wrongly instituted under section 304 (B) of I.P.C. and chargesheet too erroneously filed under section 304 B of I.P.C., respondents filed application before the trial court for due correction and amendments in the F.I.R. and other documents, which facts have been admitted in affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The facts brought before this Court is an instance of irresponsible investigation which may shake confidence of people to expect a fair investigation. In case of Ram Lal Narang vs. State ( Delhi Admn.) reported in 1979 S.C. 1791 and Hasan Bhai Vali Bhai Qureshi vrs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (3) PLJR (S.C. ) 287 observed that at time casualness and irresponsible investigation has left no option with the Court but to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 submits that he lodged a case on the basis of the rumour of murder of his daughter, from co- villagers of accused. His suspicion got confounded as the girl remained traceless and many persons confirming her murder. The said submission made on behalf of the respondent no.7 is not very convincing and a complaint of magnitude of dowry death ought not to be lodged in such definite terms as alleged in F.I.R.. The respondent submits that the petitioner admits in his petition that latter too filed a complaint being Complaint Case no.422/05 dated 6.9.2005 before C.J.M., Vaishali. In aforesaid complaint it has been 4 alleged that Usha Kumari has eloped with one Alok Kumar. The complaint case too was ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence. The dismissal of complaint case of petitioner would not belittle the act of informant of instituting an incorrect case of dowry death when there was no death at all. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 further states that the facts mentioned in complaint petition filed by petitioner contained in Annexure-3 differs with some of the facts mentioned in public petition contained in Annexure-4. Further more the girl in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that petitioners and others tortured her. The Court for the present is not for the least dispute the submission of respondent no.7 that Usha Kumari may have been tortured for dowry. This Court is emphasizing that respondent ought not to have lodged F.I.R. in definite terms that his daughter has been murdered by accused petitioner and others. The other prayer of petitioner is for award of due compensation as on account of false allegation made by respondent no.7 and irresponsible investigation of police led to his incarceration in jail in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As such he has pleaded that both the complainant as well as the State are obliged to compensate him for such loss of liberty apparently in a case of false accusation. In support of his submission he has relied upon a decision in a case of Mahesh Ram vrs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 250. It is just by chance that the girl has been recovered by the Bengal Police. In case the girl could not 5 be recovered the petitioner could have faced imprisonment up to life under section 304 (B) of I.P.C. on such false allegations. It appears that relief for payment of compensation has been specifically deleted on 17.12.2008 by the petitioner pursuant to objection of stamp report to confine the prayer to one relief only. In this view of the matter it is difficult for this Court to consider this plea. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs S.P., Vaishali to consider the materials on record and to take a decision whether a case under sections 211 and 182 of I.P.C. is made out against the respondent no.7 .He / she would also examine the irresponsible measure in which police has conducted the investigation. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)