LALU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marhaura P.S. Case No. 148 of 2004 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was instituted by the informant Shail Kumari Devi against the petitioner and four others named on 10-8-2004. The fardbeyan of the FIR was recorded by S.I., C. N. Jha, the officer-in- charge of the P.S. who also himself took up investigation of the case. Subsequently, by an order of the Director General of Police, Bihar, the investigation was handed over to the CID, Bihar. Accordingly, the investigation into the offence was conducted by CID and on conclusion of investigation, charge- sheet for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was submitted by Inspector, CID, Bihar against the petitioner and three others. The charge-sheet along with the case diary containing the evidences collected during investigation was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Saran at Chapra who, on consideration of the materials took cognizance of offence against the petitioner and others directing for their trial for the offence.

(2.) The question raised by the petitioner is a point of law. It is submitted that under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as to the Code) only an officer-in-charge of the a police station has authority to file a charge-sheet and that the Inspector of CID not being the officer-in-charge of a police station has no authority to file a charge-sheet and that, therefore, the charge-sheet submitted by the Inspector. CID should be quashed as unwarranted.

(3.) In support of his submission, the petitioner cited the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 110: AIR 2007 SC 1087 wherein the Apex. Court has held that under Code of Criminal Procedure, investigation consists proceeding to the spot ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of suspected offender, collection of evidence and formation of opinion as to whether on the materials 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 a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure shows that while it is permissible for an officer-in- charge of the police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation the responsibility for each one of the above steps is that of the officer-in-charge of the police station. The final step in the investigation namely, the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be of officer-in-charge of the police station and this function cannot be delegated and can be performed by no other authority. The formation of the opinion of the police on the materials collected during investigation as to whether judicial scrutiny is warranted or not is entirely left to the officer-in- charge of the police station. There is no provision for delegation of above function regarding formation of opinion but only a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.