- (1.) 7/ 2.5.2012Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER has filed this writ application for handing over the investigation of Sakchi P.S Case No. 73 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 1122 of 2011 to C.B.I for fair investigation in the matter. It appears that the Sakchi P.S Case No. 73 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 1122 of 2011 was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the petitioner that her son aged about 26 years, went missing on 20.5.2011 and thereafter, he could not be traced out. On the basis of the written report given by the petitioner, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It is alleged that during investigation, the SIM card of the mobile phone of the petitioner's son was recovered by the police. The person, from whom, the same was recovered was let out by the police and accordingly, the petitioner filed this writ application for handing over the investigation of the police case to the C.B.I. It appears that by order dated 23.3.2012 passed in this case, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur was directed to look into the matter personally and take all care to find out the truth. It was also directed that if required, the investigation may be withdrawn from the concerned Investigating Officer and it may be given to the competent Police Officer.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the State and also accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that thereafter, the investigating officer has been changed in the case and investigation is still continued. IT also appears from the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the Sr. Superintendent of Police is taking personal care in the case for proper investigation in the matter. In that view of the matter, nothing survives to be decided in this case and no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the case pending. The question, whether the investigation of the case may be ordered by this Court to be done by the C.B.I., is no more res integra. In Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 733, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court of India, wherein, it has been laid as follows:- "4. When the information is laid with the police, but no action in thatbehalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdictionto take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquireinto the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case theMagistrate after recording evidence finds a prime facie case, instead ofissuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the policeconcerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code andto submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose anyoffence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaintunder Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the compliant/evidencerecorded prime facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to takecognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. Theseaspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of MedicalSciences Employees' Union (Regd.) V. Union of India. It was specificallyobserved that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. 5. The above position was again highlighted recently in GangadharJanardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and in Minu Kumari v. State ofBihar. " (Emphasis supplied). ;