Once The Investigation Is Completed It Is Mandatory For The Police To Inform The Informant About Action Taken: Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court on Monday (01st February) directed the State Government to ensure that the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. are 'scrupulously followed' in all cases. The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay specifically directed the Home Department of the State Government to issue a proper circular addressed to all police...
The Tripura High Court on Monday (01st February) directed the State Government to ensure that the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. are 'scrupulously followed' in all cases.
The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay specifically directed the Home Department of the State Government to issue a proper circular addressed to all police stations requiring the Officer-in-Charge of the police station and the Investigating Officer to comply with the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. in all cases.
Plea before the Court
The Court was hearing a plea filed by one Sri Bhaskar Deb raising an issue that the State Police authorities are not following the mandate of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. in a large number of cases.
It may be noted that the said provision [Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C.] makes it mandatory for the officer-in-charge of the police station to communicate the action taken by him to the first informant upon the completion of the investigation.
This Section reads as under,
"(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given."
In this backdrop, the grievance of the petitioner was that the requirement of this Provision was being breached in numerous cases in the State.
He also cited several instances where despite completion of investigation the first informant was completely in dark about the developments.
The petitioner also annexed affidavits of several complainants, who had filed first information before the concerned police station and they were not communicated the result of the completion of the investigation.
The Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that all the instances pertained to West Tripura District.
He, therefore, submitted that if in the urban centers of the State, the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. were not being fulfilled then the situation in the rural centers would be much worse.
Court's observations
Taking into account the response filed by the State of Tripura, wherein the issues raised by the Petiitoner were not denied or disputed, the Court said,
"We have no basis to discard the instances cited by the petitioner where the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P. C. may not have been strictly followed."
The Court further noted,
"The said provision is meant to convey to the first informant, the result of the completion of the investigation and in a given case, if he wants to contest the police report. When the first informant, who in large number of cases may be the victim or the heir of the victim is not conveyed the result of the completion of the police investigation, the same would undoubtedly breach the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C."
Thus, the respondents were therefore directed to ensure that the said requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. are scrupulously followed in all cases and proper directions be issued in this regard.
Case title - Sri Bhaskar Deb v. The State of Tripura and another [W.P. (C) (PIL) No.07/2020]
Read Order