IMPHAL, December 5: A double bench comprising of Chief Justice, LK Mohapatra and Justice, N Kotiswar Singh, High Court of Manipur, has disposed off the writ petition filed by Sapam Robinhood’s father into his son’s death citing emergence of parallel investigation in the wake of an ongoing enquiry for the same incident.
The bench however directed the officer in-charge of Porompat police station, to take necessary action prescribed under section 154 of the CrPC if any cognizance offence is found based on the enquiry constituted by the State government.
It may be recalled that Robinhood’s father, Sapam Romesh Singh had filed the petition following the failure of the Porompat police to register an FIR case when he (Romesh) had approached the concerned OC on July 16.
He was of the view that the report in the Suo Moto case registered by the concerned police station was based on fabricated report.
In his petition he pleaded the court to direct the authority concerned to lodge an FIR against the Manipur Police to book the police personnel involved in ‘unjustified’ firing of rubber bullet resulted in the killing of his son. At the same time, to entrust an independent enquiry like the CBI to investigate the incident.
Subsequent upon the WP, the respondents filed a counter affidavit before the court elaborating on measures taken up in the aftermath of the incident including informing that an enquiry has been constituted to enquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the death of Sapam Robinhood Singh.
In the affidavit, the respondent mentioned that the inquiry was instituted under the commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 instead of registering an FIR on the basis of the written report submitted by the petitioner.
It said the inquiry will investigate the causes and circumstances leading to the death of Ronbinhood, identify instances of any excesses or lapses on the part of security personnel on duty and identify and to recommend corrective measures on duty and remedies to prevent recurrence of similar incidents in the future.
The double bench after examining the claims and counter claimed submitted by the petitioners and respondents, observed that the allegation made by the petitioner was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondents.
The order while referring to the counter claims (affidavit) submitted before the court that an enquiry is being conducted into the incident, observed that the registration of the FIR at the present stage will amount to two parallel investigations in the same incident.
It uphold that under the 154 of the Cr.P.C prescribes that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be assigned by the person giving it, and substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such an office in such as form as the State Government may prescribed in this behalf.
Therefore it was the duty of the Officer in-charge of the Porompat police station, to examine the complaint given by the petitioner to find out any cognisable and dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 154 Cr.P.C.
However, the exercise has not been undertaken by the OC Porompat said the order despite having received the complaint. The order also cited to be taken note so far as protection to public servant u/s 197 of the Cr.P.C is concerned.
Given the circumstance, the bench disposed off the Writ Petition directing the OC of Porompat Police Station to examine the report of the enquiry and take action accordingly.