Jharkhand High Court orders CBI to probe allegations of police-crime nexus in Dhanbad coal mafia case

The Jharkhand High Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe allegations regarding a link between the coal mafia and police officials in Dhanbad city.

The court found sufficient grounds and transferred the case to the CBI due to the local police’s reluctance to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite opportunities to do so.

In its decision, the court stated: “The Court finds that the prima facie case of transfer of this case to the CBI is placed before the CBI as there are senior persons involved and the Jharkhand Police are not willing to register the FIR in view of the opportunity given to them and they have opposed the same at the counter. affidavit in the form of an IA solely on the ground that the petitioner has a criminal record.”

“In view of the above, the CBI is directed to register the case of preliminary investigation in relation to the complaint of the present petition and the complaint is also filed through Annexure 2 before the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). and after a preliminary investigation, the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concludes that the investigation case has been proven. He is free to register the FIR and investigate the same in accordance with law,” it reads on.

The order further emphasized that the CBI director, after the preliminary investigation, could register an FIR if justified. All police officers were instructed to cooperate with the CBI during this investigation.

The court made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a journalist alleging that a police official was complicit in the coal mafia.

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, presiding judge of the single judge, claimed that the matter warranted investigation by the Union investigation agency.

Moreover, the court criticized the state government’s petition filed after the case was reserved and found it unwarranted. The case revolves around allegations of illegal mining and sales involving a police officer and the coal mafia.

The court emphasizes that the purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether the information provided constitutes a recognizable criminal offense. It reiterated that the proper procedure for verifying the information should take place after the registration of an FIR, stressing the importance of police courtesy towards the public.

The court noted, “It is essential that every police officer should be in step with the higher executive and have a sound understanding of the value of civility. The police are the first visible point of contact for citizens. It is the only agency that has the broadest possible contact with the population.”

Furthermore, the court underlined that police functions are primarily preventive and regulatory, noting that police must maintain order and prevent crime, while upholding the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The court stated, “Social legislation has added a new dimension to the role of the police. In fact, the role of the police has been redefined to include the values ​​of democratic quality, secularism, social justice, human dignity and building a democratic image of the police at the service of the community. The concept of development and distributive justice has further expanded the role of the police into the new arenas and in a democratic society, the police are accountable to the people. The purpose of the FIR is to trigger the law to obtain information about the occurrence of a cognizable offense and to confirm it during the trial.

The court clarified that anyone can file an FIR and stated that the issue of locus standi cannot be a reason for not registering it.

“A prima facie case is made out for registration of the FIR and there is no question of non-registration of the FIR if such a case is made out,” the court added.

Finally, the court recognized that while a criminal investigation cannot normally be ordered in the jurisdiction, special circumstances warrant judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court concluded, “It is a settled bill that justice should not only be done, but that there should be an appearance that the same is being done and has been done.”

Accordingly, the writ was allowed and quashed.

Appearance:

For the petitioner: – Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

For the defendant state: – Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Senior Lawyer Mr. Manoj Kumar, Lawyer Mr. Deepankar Roy, Lawyer

For the Enforcement Directorate: – Mr. AKDas, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Arup Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Ors

LL citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 159

Click here to read the verdict