Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to complete the investigation in fair and proper manner with regard to the complaint lodged on 14.09.2017, which has been registered as Doranda P.S. Case No.278/2017, dated 29.11.2017, corresponding to G.R. No.6525/2017 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 66A and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

After filing of the writ petition, counter affidavit was called upon and the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, wherein, it has been disclosed that final form has been submitted against two of the accused persons under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received very offensive video by the mobile numbers as disclosed in the contents of the FIR and the police has not investigated the same and submitted final form without proper enquiry.

On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-State draws attention of the Court to different annexures contained in the writ petition and submits that some of the messages are with regard to Good Morning and Hi and one photograph of CD is also there, wherein, it has been written in handwriting very offensive language against the present Prime Minister of the country and Hindu religion. He submits that this matter may not be closed here and further direction may kindly be issued to the State.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the messages, which are annexed with the writ petition and finds that in some of the messages, Good Morning and Hi have been communicated and one CD is alleged to be offensive.

Normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it is only further investigation that can be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. But where the constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner. The victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial. Further, not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere, which is well settled principle of law. If deficiency in the investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities, or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.

In the case in hand, the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against two of the accused persons under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from one of the CD, none of the messages which have been annexed with the writ petition can be said to be abusive. Further, it has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that mobile numbers disclosed in the complaint, have been examined by the police and two persons have been found to be residing outside the Sate and after proper investigation, the final form has been submitted.

In view of the above facts, the Court finds that this is not a case for invoking the power under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Further, the Court where the matter is pending, can alter the charge at any stage under Section 216 Cr.P.C. if certain material in the trial comes. The learned court is not powerless where the matter is pending and if in course of trial, something comes further, any person can be called by the learned court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court even speaks that if the evidence has come, there is no need of hearing the accused persons while calling under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

In view of the above facts, this petition is disposed of.

It is open to the petitioner to make out his case before the learned trial court under Sections 216 Cr.P.C., 319 Cr.P.C. and any other Sections, in accordance with law.

Whatever has been discussed herein above, that is position of law and there is no opinion on the further material in course of trial of the court.