LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of
Allahabad high court expressed serious displeasure on the functioning of Uttar Pradesh Police for not completing investigation in a dacoity case in last 21 years though it had to be concluded within 90 days. The inordinate delay occurred because the case diary went missing.
Suspecting that there may be more such cases as well, the bench of justice
Ajai Lamba directed UP home secretary, director general of police and inspector general of police, Lucknow range, to get an audit conducted in all 1,568 police stations and ensure that all investigation files remain active, investigation is conducted speedily and effectively and reports filed in courts as per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and police regulations.
The bench pulled up Sitapur police for being absolutely careless, callous and criminally negligent in conducting investigation of an offence as serious as dacoity and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000, directing the station house officer of Mishrikh police station to deposit the same on next date to be paid to the petitioner who has been facing trauma due to pendency of the probe. The court directed Sitapur SP to probe the role of the investigator who caused delay in probe and said that the cost shall be recovered from the erring officer and fixed October 25, 2018 for knowing the status of action.
Circle officer held an inquiry against constable
The order came on a petition moved by one Chaturbhuj in 2005 for a dacoity that allegedly took place on May 24, 1996 in the jurisdiction of Mishrikh police. An FIR was registered on December 8, 1997 on the directions of concerned judicial magistrate under section 156(3) of CrPC and four persons were named in it.
Police arrested the petitioner Chaturbhuj and sent him to jail but he was released on bail later. According to additional government advocate S P Singh, the final report was prepared on April 2, 1998 and sent to circle officer who returned it on September 5, 1998 while ordering further investigation in the case. Further investigation was conducted by three investigating officers but no report was filed in court. Later, the circle officer held an inquiry against constable Krishnalal
Prajapati and punished him by deducting his half salary for having lost the case diary given to him. The court was surprised that though the constable was punished but no effort was made to reconstitute the case file so that investigation could be completed.
The petitioner, who was an accused in the case, had to approach high court as he was taken into custody because of registration of the crime and was consequently suspended from service in departmental action.
He was reinstated after being released on bail but the arrears of his salary etc. were retained till final judgment in the criminal case. The petitioner had moved the court to know result of the investigation.
Picture used for representational purpose
