IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2419 of 2010 BALESHWAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 28.04.2010 Perused the report at Flag „A‟ which has been submitted in terms of the order of this Court dated 26.2.2010, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “…..This Court at the same time is of the view that on account of delay in institution of this case that the links of this case could not be clearly established. In this context it is shocking to note that the complaint petition was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Darbhanga on 4.1.2006 and yet it had taken a period of more than two and half years for the learned C.J.M. to decide as to whether the matter required to be referred to police for institution as a police case for investigation by the police in exercise of its power under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In this context, it has been found by this Court that though the then C.J.M., Darbhanga on receipt of the complaint on 4.12.2008 had directed to send the complaint to police under Section 156(3) the said order was not complied Cr.P.C. and it was left to In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga who vide his memo no. 1306 dated 12.8.2009 had actually sent a copy of the complaint petition dated 4.12.2006 for institution and also for investigation and thereafter on 16.8.2009 the case in hand was instituted. It has to be noted that the allegation of complainant related to the period of October, 2006 and the complaint was filed on 4.12.2006 stating that the victim lady Shushila Devi, the sister of the complainant was missing from 1.10.2006 and thus it was 2 almost after three years of the occurrence that police is said to have undertaken the investigation in. This Court, therefore, is prima-facie satisfied that whatever links could have been collected by the police in its investigation was allowed to vanish on account of some serious bungling committed in the court of C.J.M., Darbhanga. This Court, however, would hasten to add that unless an enquiry is completed, as is now has been directed by this order, no final opinion can be recorded in this respect. The District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga therefore is directed to hold an enquiry and submit a report to this Court as to under what circumstances and/or whose lapse and lache, the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga had taken the period of two years and nine months approximately in sending a copy of the complaint to the concerned police station for institution of a police case and its investigation under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Let such enquiry on the administrative side be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order…” In the report at Flag „A‟ dated 22.4.2010 , the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga has tried to explain the delay of almost 2 years and 9 months in institution of police case by the police. The relevant part of the aforesaid explanation reads as follows:- “1. That complainant Sushil Sahni (informant) filed this complaint on 4.12.2006 in this Court and vide order dated 4.12.2006 Complaint case No. 1606/06 registered and at the instance of Complainant copy of the complaint has 3 been ordered to be sent to the Kamtaul Police Station concerned for institution and investigation U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. and copy of complaint has been sent to Kamtaul Police Station vide memo No. 2004 dated 5.12.2006 of this office (Annexure-I). 2. That case fixed on 30.12.2006 and onward upto dated 24.7.09 awaiting receiving of institution of police case on the basis of complaint copy and during this period complainant remained absent on each date fixed. 3. That on 11.8.09 police officer incharge of Kamtaul Police Station filed an application praying inter alia to send him another copy of the complaint as the Court copy of complaint sent earlier is missing at his police station. This application of the police officer also disclose about wireless message No. 377/V-o dt. 26.6.09 of the S.P., Darbhanga perhaps for quick response to institute police case on the complaint sent to police station from Court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. That accordingly to that prayer of the officer- in-charge of Kawtaul Police Station this Court has again sent fresh copy of the complaint petition concern vide this Court Office Memo No. 1306 dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure-II) upon which F.I.R. vide Kamtaul P. S. Case No. 103/09 has been instituted on 16.08.2009 and same FIR has been received to this Court on 17.08.2009. 5. Lastly that under the facts stated above, no any delay has been caused by this Court in sending the copy of the complaint to the concerned police station for institution and investigation of police case U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.” 4 The said report has been forwarded to this Court by the District & Session Judge by his letter dated 24.4.2010 with a remark that it appeared to him that the delay in the institution of the police case was due to lapse of the police station concerned. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note that both the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga and District and Sessions, Darbhanga have been trying to shield their own inefficiencies by shifting the blame only on the police. True it is, such delay in the institution of the police case in terms of the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been actually caused by the police which is directly answerable to the Court for such belated compliance, but that cannot absolve the concerned court altogether. It is the duty of the Court which sends the complaint for its being registered as police case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to also ensure that its direction is complied in promptitude and failure on the part of the police to do so within a reasonable period can be suitably dealt with by the judicial orders. To this Court it appears that the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate in office between 4.12.2006 to 17.8.2009 had infact completely 5 forgotten their duty. In that view of the matter, the District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga is now directed to submit his independent exhaustive enquiry report by holding inspection of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga as with regard to the status of the period consumed in institution of the police case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the period 4.1.2006 to till date. Upon holding such enquiry and looking into the relevant records and registers, if maintained, he will submit his report to this Court which then would be placed before Hon‟ble Inspecting Judge of Darbhanga district for taking necessary disciplinary action against the erring judicial officers who are found to be negligent in their duty of not keeping track of the institution of the police case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Let the records of this Court on receipt of the aforementioned report of the District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga be placed before the Hon‟ble Inspecting Judge of Darbhanga District for further necessary action. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)