IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. W.J.C. NO.242 OF 2010 REKHA DEVI, WIFE OF PRAMOD SINGH, RESIDENT OF GARSANDA, P.S. RAMGRAH CHOWK, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI………………………………………………….……..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIME), CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CRIME), CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME), CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 7. MOHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NADIAWAN, P.S. RAMGARH CHAWK, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI 8. UDAY SHANKAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NADIAWAN, P.S. RAMGARH CHOWK, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ……………………………………………….…….RESPONDENTS *** For the petitioner: Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anant Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C. No.16 For respondent nos. 7 & 8: Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH O R D E R Jayanandan Singh, J. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8. 2. Petitioner, who is the informant, has filed this writ application for quashing of - 2 - the order vide Memo No.78 dated 19.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-5 by which Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger has been informed by Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna, that, on the orders of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, investigation of Lakhisarai (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case No.292/2008 has been transferred to C.I.D. Therefore, all the records connected with the case were directed to be handed over to the S.P. (C), Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner- informant has expressed her apprehension that this has been done at the instance of the accused persons so that they may get advantage on account of delay in investigation. It has been submitted that newly added respondent no.7 has been taken into custody in connection with the present case and if investigation remains pending, he may get advantage of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and get out of the jail. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Anenxure-3 will show that investigation of the case was complete and higher - 3 - police officials had found the case true and had directed for submission of charge sheet. He also submits that the case was transferred to C.I.D. for investigation only on the basis of a petition filed by newly added respondent no.8, a relation of respondent no.7, in Janta Darbar before the Chief Minister without any application of mind by the concerned authorities and without their prime facie satisfaction in respect of the facts stated in the said petition of respondent no.8. 5. In view of the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, file relating to transfer of the case to the C.I.D. was called for. Learned counsel for the State has produced the file. From the file it appears that one petition was filed by respondent no.8 in Janta Darbar before the Chief minister on 01.02.2010 in which it was alleged that the accused of the present case are being falsely implicated just to influence the progress of another case in which one A.S.I. of the Police was murdered of which respondent no.7 is the informant. From the file it appears that on that very day, in the margin of the application, the D.G.P. put a note to the A.D.G., C.I.D. which - 4 - reads as follows :- ,-Mh-th- ¼vi- vuq- fo-½ vi-vuq-fo- }kjk vuqla/kku@vuqla/kku fu"kiknu ds laca/k esa lafpdk nh tk,A 6. Thereafter from the file it appears that A.D.G., C.I.D. put up the following notes before the D.G.P. iqfyl egkfuns”kd fnukad 01-02-2010 dks Þturk njckj esa eq[;ea=hÞ dk;ZØe esa fn;s x;s Hkonh; dk vkns'k dk i`’B 17@i- dk dqi;k voyksdu fd;k tk;A y[khljk; ¼jkex<+ pkSd½ Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 292@08 ,oa 295@06 ds vfHkys[k izkIr dj fy;s x;s gSaA y[khljk; ¼jkex<+ pkSd½ Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 292@08 /kkjk 376¼2½ ¼th½@379 Hkk-n-fo- ds vuqla/kku ds laca/k esa Hkonh; dk vkns'k visf{kr gSA dqi;k gLrk{kj vLi"V ¼jkT;c)Zu 'kekZ½ 7. Thereafter D.G.P. passed the following orders:- dkaM dk vuqla/kku vi0 vuq0 foHkkx rRdky xzg.k djsxk@ 'kh?kz vuqla/kku fof/kor iwjk fd;k tk;@ 8. These notes show the chronological events subsequent to filing of the petition by respondent no.8 before the Chief Minister in Janta Darbar. From none of notes it appears that allegation made in the petition of respondent no.8 was gone through by any of authorities and - 5 - any opinion, prima facie, was formed that the case is fit to be transferred to C.I.D. for investigation. There is not the slightest indication in either of the notes that there was subjective satisfaction of any of the authorities that the case is fit to be investigated by the C.I.D. 9. Learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 410 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (Volume-I) and has submitted that D.G.P. has power to order for investigation of a case by the C.I.D. From perusal of Rule 410 it appears that in Clause (II) (a) under articles (1) to (7), specific category of cases have been mentioned in which investigation may be made by the C.I.D. However, sub-clause (8) contains residuary power of the Inspector General to order for investigation by the C.I.D. It reads as follows:- “…….(8) such crimes about whom Inspector-General gives special orders.” 10. This clause shows that other crimes can be investigated by the C.I.D. only on special orders. The words „special orders‟ give an indication that concerned authority has to - 6 - satisfy himself with regard to sufficiency of materials for directing a normal police case to be investigated by the C.I.D. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents have rightly submitted that reason for such transfer of investigation to C.I.D. cannot be disclosed in the order as it may influence the investigation of the case. But this much is clear that the order must indicate that mind has been applied by the concerned authority and he has reached to a subjective satisfaction for such order. The notes, as noted above, do not show that any authority had reached to even a subjective satisfaction for such transfer. Any mechanical order even in respect of an administrative function makes the order liable to be interfered with and it may be challenged as arbitrary, mala fide or based on extraneous consideration etc. Some expression has to appear in such orders to show that there was even a minimal application of mind for passing such orders. The notes as quoted above do not show anything like that. 12. In the circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that the order of the D.G.P. who - 7 - transferred the investigation of the case to C.I.D. was a proper exercise of power. The said order as communicated by Annexure-5 is, therefore, quashed. 13. However, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8 has pointed out that detailed complaints were filed before the D.G.P. also earlier in which serious infirmities and improbabilities in the prosecution case were pointed out and circumstances were pointed out which showed that the case was false. 14. Thus, without going into the merits of the allegation, this Court directs the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger to examine the records of the case in the light of the petition filed by respondent no.8 in Janta Darbar and form a definite opinion as to whether the investigation of the case by the local police is complete in all respects or as to whether the case requires further investigation or an investigation by the C.I.D. For this purpose, he shall obtain all relevant records from all quarters including C.I.D., which may have been already sent. He must form a definite opinion within one week from the date of - 8 - receipt/production of a copy of this order and thereafter make his recommendation accordingly to the concerned authority in the matter. 15. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 16. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 19th April, 2010 N.A.F.R. (B.T.)