REGISTRAR GHC AGARTALA BENCH Vs. SUPDTT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suo moto Criminal Misc. case has been initiated on the basis of a news item published in local daily, namely the 'Bibek' in its issue dated 1 st December, 2002. The news item depicted a heart shocking news describing the precarious condition of a woman folk in a sexual assault case. The victim woman has allegedly been raped by two miscreants on 7th January, 2002. Being afraid of she left her native village and subsequently filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24.1.2002 instead of taking cognizance, transmitted the ejahar(complaint petition) to the police station concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registering the same as F.I.R. and for taking up investigation, but police neither registered the case nor took up investigation and as such the complainant lodged an application on 5.4.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District, Agartala. This court vide order dated 13.12.2002 took up the matter suo moto and issued notice upon the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District and the Officer-in-charge of Jirania Police Station requiring them to show cause as to why appropriate orders should not be passed. The Officer-in-Charge, Jirania Police Station was further directed to appear personally before the court. The S.P. and the O/C concerned furnished show cause reply on 2.1.2003 contending, inter alia, that the officer-in-charge of Jirania Police Station received the written complaint of the victim on 8.2.2002 from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Agartala, West Tripura and accordingly they registered the case on 8.2.2002 under Section 3761.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 12/02. This court directed the Deputy Registrar (Bench) to verify as to when the complaint petition was transmitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st class to the Police Station and when the P.S. received the same. The Deputy Registrat(Bench) furnished his report after verification wherefrom it reveals that the learned Magistrate vide serial No. 525 dated 25.1.2002 transmitted the same to the Police Court and the Police Court received the same on 28.1.2002 and the Constable of Jirania Police Station received the same from the Police Court on 29.1.2002. This being the admitted position of records, it remains proved that the Jirania Police Station received the ejahar on 29.1.2002 which was transmitted by the learned Magistrate, but the F.I.R. was registered only on 8.2.2002. There is no explanation in the show cause reply furnished by the O/C concerned as to why the F.I.R. was not registered on the basis of ejahar transmitted to him by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the date when it was received and why the F.I.R. was concealed for about ten days?

(2.) Mr. P.Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that for obvious reason the ejahar was not placed before the O/C by the Duty Officer of that Police Station who received the same, as a result, delay in registering the case happened. But in the written show cause reply no such plea has been taken, rather categorically in para 2(A) of the show cause reply, the O/C made an averment that Jirania Police Station received the ejahar from the court only on 8.2.2002. This concealment of real fact told upon the honesty and integrity of the police officials of Jirania Police Station. On receipt of the ejahar. for argument sake, on 8.2.2002 the O/c ought to have verified the matter from his subordinate staff as to when the said ejahar was received in the .P.S., but he did not do so. It demonstrates not only the callousness of thepolice officials of Jirania Police Station, but prima facie, it reveals the commission of offence by one or other police officials of Jirania Police Station punishable under Section 217 of the I.PC. For some culpable purpose one or other police person of Jirania Police Station deliberately concealed the ejahar for about ten days and of late registered the case on 8.2.2002 though actually received the ejahar on 29.1.2002. Prima facie that was done with a view "to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save" the wrong doers criminals involved in a sexual assault committed on a woman. This sort of disobedience of the direction of law should be condemned at any cost, otherwise the culprits involved in sexual assault case would get rid of the penal consequences.

(3.) From the available records, it is not feasible for the court to ascertain who is the police personnel committed the offence punishable under Section 217 IPC in concealing the ejahar for about ten days in order to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save the miscreants and as such in my considered opinion, the S.P.(West) must take up the matter for immediate investigation to identify the police personnel liable for the said offence and to proceed accordingly.