By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench has recently expressed its reservation against the decision of the Judge of the District Council court to dispose of cases without allowing the police to complete its investigation.
The High Court made the observation against the District Council Court (DCC) judge in two separate cases. The first case is related to the rape of a minor girl in Mawryngkneng while the second case relates to an incident where a father killed his seven-year-old son at Mawlai Mawiong.
While hearing the two separate petitions filed by East Khasi Hills Superintendent of Police, Justice Sudip Ranjan Sen expressed his unhappiness with the behaviour with the DCC judge for not appearing before the High Court after being summoned.
“For this time, I am not taking any firm stand but in future the DCC judge should maintain courtesy and decorum as an whenever he is called for,” Justice Sen said in the judgement.
He directed the judge to proceed with the two cases by following the Criminal Code Procedure as well as relevant laws applicable.
While hearing the case about a father Tik Mawlong killing his seven-year-old son Edwin Lyngdoh Lyngkhoi by hitting with an iron rod, the DCC judge had issued bailable warrant against the accused in January 11, 2012.
The police could not take action on the said warrant as the accused was never found after which the warrant was returned to the court.
The DCC judge passed another order on October 30, 2012 directing the mother of the accused to appear before the court.
Appearing before the court, the mother informed the court that the accused could not be produced due to his mental sickness.
Accordingly, the judge directed the officer in charge Mawlai police station to arrest the accused and admit him at MIMHANS for treatment and also directed the police to submit the report before the court on December 10, 2012.
After failing to trace the accused, the police on December 7 submitted a report that the accused was not found.
The District Council Court judge again directed the police to arrest the accused and admit him at MIMHANS and submit the report on March 11. The police again failed to trace the accused.
The officer in charge of Mawlai police station informed the matter to the court and also apologized to the court for not filing the report within the due date.
However, the judge without waiting for the report from the police passed an impugned order on March 11, 2013 discharging the accused from all liabilities in the case on the ground of the failure of the police to comply with the court order to submit the report, while also expressing the court’s helplessness to proceed with the case.
Taking cognizance of the ruling of the DCC judge, Justice Sen said that by looking at the impugned order, it is apparent that the judge had cast responsibility upon the police for dropping the case.
“In this instant case, if all the Investigating Officers were not cooperating with the court, the court should have summoned the higher ranking officials to direct them to do the needful and to ensure the attendance of the accused to face trial,” Justice Sen observed.
He also observed that speedy disposal is the expectation of the people but at the same time it is the duty of the court to ensure that such speedy and hurried disposal should not cause injustice or fail to meet the needs of justice.
“The impugned order (dated March 11, 2013) should be set aside and trial should be restored back at the stage from where it was suspended,” Justice Sen said.
While hearing a separate petition of the police in relation to an alleged rape and assault case of a minor by the accused Shalak Nongrum at Mawryngkneng on September 29, 2011, Justice Sen said that the DCC judge mechanically, without applying his judicial mind, dropped the proceeding against the accused which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
During the course of the investigation, the police had found that the minor had been repeatedly raped and hence the Investigating Officer prayed for extension of time for filing of the charge sheet before the DCC judge.
On enquiry by the High Court, the DCC judge had submitted that he was compelled to pass his order as the police had failed to comply with the order of the Court.
The DCC judge also submitted that if the impugned order is set aside, he will not dispose the case even if it remains pending for a long period of time.
“Just because the Investigating Officer failed to file the charge sheet in time this cannot be the ground for disposing off the case by way of discharging the accused from the liabilities,” Justice Sen said, while again reiterating the duty of the court to see that speedy disposal of cases should not cause injustice.
Stating that the impugned order does not have sufficient ground to dispose the case where heinous crime is involved, Justice Sen directed the DCC judge to restore back the case to that stage from where it fell down and to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.