Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Oct 13: Writ Court has sought indulgence of Chief Justice and Portfolio Judge of District Baramulla for looking into the affairs of judicial system in the district and action against Mobile Magistrate Pattan for crossing his limits while dealing with a case.
Justice M K Hanjura was dealing with a petition filed under Section 561A seeking quashing of order passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Unit-III, Pattan, which was not in his domain and power.
The Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Unit-III, Pattan dealt with a case which was referred to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sopore and recorded in statement of witnesses in the mater and finally passed the order converting therein the offence under Section 309 into 302 CrPc, which the Writ Court said was not his field and authority.
Court in this view while setting aside the order of Mobile Magistrate also directed Registrar Judicial to place a copy of order before the Chief Justice and the Portfolio Judge, looking into the affairs of District Baramulla.
Court has also suggested for initiating administrative action against the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Unit-III, Pattan, for having travelled into an area which was neither within his domain nor in his power.
Police will conduct the investigation in case bearing FIR No. 171/2011, registered at police station Sopore, for the commission of an offence under Section 309 in accordance with the law and lay a report before the Court of the competent jurisdiction who will pass appropriate orders in it in accordance with the law without getting swayed by any observation made herein before by this Court.
In a bunch of petitions, the petitioners were aggrieved of the order dated 30th of December, 2013, passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Unit-III, Pattan, on the grounds that the deceased Azad Ahmad Lone had not died under mysterious circumstances. He had committed suicide on 23.06.2011, in broad day light, in the absence of the petitioners.
When the petitioners came to know about this incident, they informed the authorities of Police Station Sopore about the same on 23.6.2011 itself, as a consequence of which an FIR bearing No. 171/2011, for the commission of an offence under Section 309 RPC was registered in the matter and the investigation of the case.
However, another application filed by the father of the deceased in the Court of CJM Sopore on 09.7.2011, when the police had already registered an FIR and were investigating the case, seeking therein that the Police Station Sopore be directed to register an FIR in the case and conduct the investigation in accordance with the law.
The CJM Sopore without calling any report from the police authorities directed the SHO P/S Sopore to register an FIR immediately and submit the report to the court on 09.07.2011 itself. Meantime, two more applications were filed before the court, in which court beyond its scope directed the police authorities to furnish the status report immediately and to get the statement of the father of deceased recorded under Section 164 -A CrPC and thereafter with one more violation of provisions of law directed the Dy SP Headquarters to hold re-investigation and record the statement of the complainant and the other witnesses, when the matter was already under investigation in FIR 171/2011.
CJM Sopore with more breach of provisions of law transferred the case to the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity) Pattan, which should have not been done by him.
Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity) Pattan despite knowing the fact that the matter is still under police investigation in FIR 171/2011 and no challan or closure report has been presented in the court of law proceeded in the matter and passed the order which had been challenged in the High Court.
The Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity) Pattan, court said, had no jurisdiction to record the evidence in the case or to pass the order impugned.
Court said the law is well settled that when a private complaint is filed before a Magistrate in relation to the offences which are tri-able by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant, has to commit the case to the court of Session, as is provided by Section 193 CrPC.
Court said the 2nd FIR on the directions of CJM could not have been lodged when the matter was already being investigated into by the police authorities on the same set of facts that a human life has been wasted, which is against the dictate of law.
“The Chief Judicial Magistrate as is reiterated here transferred the case to the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity) Pattan, who adopted a novel procedure which is unknown to the provisions of law.
He recorded the statements of the witnesses in camera and opined that the offences under Section 302 read with 120 RPC and also contempt of court are established against the SDPO, the doctor, the ASI and the SHO concerned, who have fabricated the evidence and passed it as genuine before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sopore”, court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
