Jharkhand High Court Directs CBI To Investigate Allegations Of Police-Crime Nexus In Dhanbad Coal Mafia Case
The Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations relating to a nexus between the coal mafia and police officials in the city of Dhanbad.
The court, finding sufficient grounds, transferred the case to the CBI because of the local police's reluctance to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the opportunities to do so.
In its order, the court stated, “The Court finds that prima facie case of transferring this case is made out to the C.B.I. as highers are involved and the Jharkhand police is not willing to register the F.I.R. in view of the opportunity provided to them and they have resisted the same in the counter affidavit in the form of I.A. only on the ground that the petitioner is having the criminal antecedent.”
“In view of the above, the C.B.I is directed to register the case of preliminary inquiry with regard to the complaint of the present writ petition and the complaint is also made by way of Annexure-2 to the C.B.I. and the Enforcement Directorate [E.D] and after preliminary inquiry, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) if comes to a conclusion that the case of investigation is made out. He is free to register the F.I.R and investigate the same in accordance with law,” it further read.
The order further emphasised that, following the preliminary inquiry, the Director of the CBI could register an FIR if warranted. All police officers were instructed to cooperate with the CBI during this inquiry.
The court made these remarks while addressing a petition filed by a journalist alleging that a police official was complicit with the coal mafia.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, presiding over the single-judge bench, asserted that the case warranted investigation by the Union's investigative agency.
Additionally, the court criticised the state government's petition filed after the case was reserved, deeming it unjustified. The case centres on accusations of illegal coal mining and sales involving a police officer and the coal mafia.
The court underscored that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to ascertain whether the information provided reveals a cognizable offence. It reiterated that the proper procedure for verifying the information should occur after the registration of an FIR, emphasising the importance of police courtesy toward the public.
The court remarked, “It is essential that every police officer must form the man on beat to the higher executive should have a sound knowledge of the value of courtesy. The police are the first visible point of contact of citizens. It is the only agency that has the widest possible contact with the people.”
Furthermore, the court underscored that police functions are primarily preventative and regulatory, noting that police must preserve order and prevent crime while upholding the rights and freedoms of citizens.
The court stated, “The social legislation has added new dimension to the role of police. In fact the role of police has been redefined to include the values of democratic quality, secularism, social justice, human dignity and building up of a democratic image of police to serve the community. The concept of development and distributive justice has further extended the role of police to the new arenas and in a democratic society the police is responsible to the people. The object of the F.I.R are to set the law into motion to obtain information about occurrence of a cognizable offence and to corroborate during trial.”
The court clarified that anyone can lodge an FIR, asserting that the question of locus standi cannot serve as a reason for failing to register it.
“A prima facie case is made out for registering the F.I.R and there is no question of not registering the F.I.R if such a case is made out,” the court added.
Finally, the court acknowledged that while normally, a criminal investigation cannot be ordered in writ jurisdiction, special circumstances warrant judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The court concluded, “It is settled proposition of law that justice should not only be done but it should be appeared that the same is being done and it has been done.”
Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Appearance:
For Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent State :- Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Senior Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate
For Enforcement Directorate:- Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
Case Title: Arup Chatterjee vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 159