IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.802 of 2009 SUNITA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CR. WJC No.816 of 2009 LALLU THAKUR @ SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 22.7.2010 Both these writ petitions are taken up together for hearing. The petitioner Sunita Devi in Cr.W.J.C.No.802 of 2009 is the informant of the case being Marhaura P.S. Case No.92 of 2009 dated 4.6.2009 instituted under section 302/34 of the Penal Code for murder of her husband. The petitioner Lallu Thakur @ Santosh Kumar Singh in Cr.W.J.C.No.816 of 2009 is a non-F.I.R. accused. The plea of both the petitioner is that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and the main accused has been let off, whereas innocent people have been implicated in the instant case. The informant Sunita Devi stated that at about 5.30 P.M. when her husband had gone to call a labourer near the house of Hakim Singh for sprinkling seeds in the field, she heard sound of firing. On hearing sound of firing she came out of her house on the main road and saw her husband lying on the road. She saw three persons who were on motor cycle, opening fire. The informant recognized two of the accused as Dr. Lal Babu Singh and his son Arun Singh, presently residing in village Sherpur, 2 P.S. Marhawrah, District Chapra. The petitioner submits that it would appear from the materials on record that the informant‟s son and her mother-in- law corroborated the prosecution case although they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. The petitioner further submits that notwithstanding the statement of the informant and her family members, the police had not filed charge sheet against the named accused namely Dr. Lal Babu Singh and his son Arun Singh. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police had tried to implicate the innocent persons in the case, like petitioner Lallu Thakur @ Santosh Kumar Singh in Cr.W.J.C.No.816 of 2009 and others. Thus, the petitioner states that she filed representations before all the concerned police officials as also filed protest cum complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate accepted the final form and summoned the non F.I.R named accused persons to face trial. The petitioner submits that during the trial three witnesses have been examined and all of them have named the original F.I.R. named accused as persons involved in the murder of informant‟s husband. Counsel for the State submits that both the police and supervising authority have recorded the statement of the informant and the relatives who supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the independent witnesses have stated that it is not the F.I.R. named accused persons but some other 3 criminals who have killed the deceased. The supervision note further shows that Dr. Lal Babu Singh is aged about 70 years and he bas been Mukhiya for about 13 years. He thus submits that the investigation is proper and there was no false implication. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that in the instant case charge sheet has been submitted against the non- F.I.R. named persons and final form has been submitted in favour of the F.I.R. named accused persons. It is also not in dispute that cognizance and charges have been framed against non-accused persons and trial of the case also begun. As per petitioner‟s contention none of the witnesses during the course of trial has made allegation against the petitioner Lallu Thakur @ Santosh and other charge sheeted accused, rather they have pointed fingers towards the F.I.R. named accused. On a petition under section 319 Cr.P.C., notices have been issued to the F.I.R. named accused persons. It also appears that the petitioner had filed a representation before senior police officials. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon‟ble Court in paragraph 60 has held as follows: “60. The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in 4 that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. If needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to unfathomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of „Divine Power‟ which no authority on earth can enjoy”. In view of the aforesaid facts if the petitioner files a fresh representation before the I.G. Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur 5 KHAN making his grievance about the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, he would examine the same and if finds that there is substance in the submission of the informant, he would take appropriate steps. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)