JUDGMENT
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. A fifteen year old blooming boy was murdered on 15/16.9.2000 and his dead body was ultimately recovered the next day.
2. Prior to this , his mother had filed a first information report at Police Station Seohara District Bijnor that the boy was missing but did not name any body as a culprit in the first information report.
3. Subsequently, after recovery of his dead body, the police (IN Case Crime No. 337 of 2000 under Sections 394, 304 and 201 I.P.C.) submitted a final report saying that it was not possible to find out as to who killed the boy. This was a very unusual and strange final report. If the police files such final reports stating that they have not been able to find out who has committed murder and murders go abegging, dooms day cannot be far off, and disorder and chaos will prevail. Criminals will hold sway; and the life and property of citizens will be rendered wholly unsafe. It is the duty of the police, to find out, as to who is responsible for a murder, and they cannot close the file and submit a quick final report, that the murder is untraceable. Files in murder cases where culprits are not immediately traceable are kept open for years together, till the murderer is found out and concerted efforts are made and special teams formulated to work out the crime.
4. It is indeed distressing to note that the police officer concerned, so easily filed a final report and no earnest efforts were made to find out the killers and it is still more surprising to see that the supervising officers allowed such a final report to be submitted to the Court.
5. Now that the mother of the murdered boy has discovered that two persons were responsible for killing her son, and has mentioned so in the protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, legal and technical pleas are being raised so, that the case may go back to square one and be shelved, as an untraceable murder.
6. The police officer who submitted the police report and those who were responsible for supervising the crime must be made to answer the laxity and we do not know if some extraneous considerations prevail.
7. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by one of the two petitioners named as the killer of the boy because the Magistrate refused to accept the final report and issued process against the duo.
8. I have heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, Advocate for the applicant and Sri R.S. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
9. The argument of the counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate has taken into consideration the affidavits filed alongwith the protest petition, which he could not do under law because no extraneous matter except the matter, collected during investigation by the police, could be looked into by him. That may be the correct legal position, and there need be no controversy about the same, but the Magistrate has looked into the investigation, report and the material collected during investigation, and that itself is sufficient to indicate, the lackadaisical and the soft peddling of the police.
10. As such, even we exclude from considering the affidavits filed by the respondent No. 2 alongwith the protest petition, the result cannot be different. This is not a case where only because of the acceptance of outside material, the protest petition has been accepted, there are clear indications in the investigation report itself, which provide material for judicial interference, and for non-acceptance of the report. The very circumstance that a murder most foul is being made to go untraced, is by itself a strong circumstance that the investigation has not been just and fair, and has been hurriedly closed, perhaps with ulterior motives.
11. In a case of this nature, therefore, the affidavits of the other witnesses mentioned before the Magistrate cannot be allowed to alter an otherwise vital and just decision, which will have vide ramification over the law and order situation and which will provide an impetuous and encouragement to criminals.
12. The larger interest of society must have precedence and murder cases should not be allowed to go untraced and unchecked. We must see whether the allegations made by the mother about the petitioner and another person are well founded or not and for that Trial must be held. The pleadings of a mother seeking justice for the murder of her son should not be allowed to become a cry in the wilderness.
13. In these circumstances, the order of the Magistrate cannot be set aside and must hold forte.
14. Petition dismissed.