Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 8: Taking serious note of the non-adherence to earlier directives, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jammu, Jatinder Singh Jamwal today directed the Crime Branch to carry out investigation in the complaint filed by Govind Ram Thakur against Neelam Daluja, sister-in-law of Editor-in-Chief of State Times and liquor baron Raj Daluja alias Raji.
The complaint of Govind Ram Thakur of Poonch, who had been running a bar named G R Trading Co in Poonch since 1971, is that Davinder Daluja along with his brother Raj Daluja in manipulation with the officials of Excise Department got the name of Neelam Daluja entered in the license of Neelam Bar and Restaurant at Poonch as partner.
The Court of CJM vide its order dated December 9, 2011 had forwarded the complaint of Govind Ram Thakur against Neelam Daluja and others under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC to the SSP Crime Branch, Jammu for investigation under Sub-Section (3) of the Section 156 of CrPC for investigation.
Since no action was taken on the complaint by the concerned authorities despite of the directive issued by the CJM Court, the complainant commenced the present application on February 1, 2012 with the prayer for calling the status report of the investigation conducted by the authorities of Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu in pursuance to the order dated December 9, 2011 and for passing appropriate orders in the matter.
Accordingly, the SHO Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu was directed by the CJM Court to submit a report. However, the Crime Branch instead of giving any plausible reason behind delay in conducting investigation, submitted that the complainant slept over the matter for more than a decade and there was no explanation offered by him for this delay.
Moreover, it was also submitted that the controversy as projected in the complaint also constitutes the subject matter of a writ petition filed in the High Court by the individuals, whose prosecution is being sought by the complainant and the High Court has already passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the License No.11/JKEL-4.
With these submissions, the SSP Crime Branch, in his report to the Court, mentioned that either the complaint may be consigned to the record or in the alternative it may be got investigated by the local police.
Vehemently disputing the report submitted by the Crime Branch, Advocate Parshotam Parmar appearing for the complainant argued that the SSP Crime Branch has neither followed the procedure prescribed by law for investigation of the case nor appreciated the contours of the controversy in its proper perspective.
“Once a complaint is forwarded to SHO of a Police Station under Section 156 of the CrPC, it is incumbent upon him to register the FIR and then investigate the matter by undertaking all the requisite steps of investigation and submit a report either in the shape of charge-sheet or a closure report at the culmination of the investigation”, the counsel for the complainant further argued, adding “since this has not been done in the present case, the report submitted by SHO Police Station Crime Branch is no sustainable in the eyes of law”.
“The case of the complainant squarely falls within the four corners of SRO 202 which specifies the cases which are to be investigated by the Crime Branch”, Advocate Parmar said, adding “as far as question of the litigation between the parties, which is sub-judice before the High Court is concerned, the litigation pertains to operation of the license in question only and the order of status-quo passed by the High Court is also with regard to the operation of the license and has nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint”.
With these arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the report of SSP Crime Branch was required to be rejected with a fresh directive to investigate the matter as per the mandate of law. In support of his arguments, he also placed reliance on judgements of Supreme Court in two cases.
On this, CJM observed, “after giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and applying my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the submissions put-forth by the counsel for the complainant/ applicant”.
“It is settled legal position that once an investigation is ordered by any Judicial Magistrate, it is incumbent upon the concerned police authority to register a case and then investigate the matter by taking various steps, which under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure generally consists of some steps like proceeding to the spot, ascertainment of fact and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence relating to commission of offence which may consist of examination of various persons (including the accused) and reduction of their statement into writing, if the investigating officer thinks fit, the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced at the trial and formation of opinion as to whether on material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by filing the charge-sheet under Section 173 of CrPC”, the CJM said.
“Therefore, the investigation started on Magistrate’s orders must end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of Code, which as already noticed may be either in the shape of charge-sheet or a closure report leaving it open for the complainant to file a protest petition in case of closure report”, the CJM said.
While referring to the observations of the Supreme Court in a case titled “Mohd Yousaf Vs Afaq Jahan and another”, the CJM said, “the concerned authority has not even bothered to initiate the investigation and without giving any opportunity to the complainant to explain his position, it has blamed him for having slept over the matter for a considerable period of time, which it need not be emphasized and is not permissible”.
“The pleas with regard to the jurisdiction of the Crime Branch to investigate the matter and the matter being subjudice before the High Court are also untenable. The contentions of the Counsel for the complainant are well-merited and deserve acceptance”, the CJM further said.
With these observations, the CJM directed the SHO Police Station, Crime Branch Jammu to investigate the matter strictly in accordance with law and conclude the investigation expeditiously.
About the application filed by the complaint for initiating the contempt proceedings against SSP Crime Branch for non compliance of the order dated December 9, 2011, the Court fixed July 17, 2012 for further hearing in the application.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel