Remanded

Xxx v. in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino

Gauhati HC7 Apr 2022WP(C) (Suo Moto)/1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a suo-moto petition regarding allegations against an investigating officer, the Court noted pending criminal contempt proceedings and ordered the Superintendent of Police to conclude the administrative enquiry disclosed in quick order.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued that the enquiry against Shri Kenter Tacha be concluded by following the procedure of law, with results informed to the complainant if any conclusion is reached.

Xxx Vs in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040004072022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) (Suo Moto) 1/2022

¶5

1:XXX Gauhati High Court,Itanagar Permanent Bench,Naharlagun

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino W/O Shri Sukar Kino, r/o Niti Vihar, Itanagar

¶8

2:THE STATE OF AP through the Superintendent of Police Capital Complex Itanagar

¶9

3:Shri Kenter Tacha SI of Police Itanagar Police Station Itanaga

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner :

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : T T Tara

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 06-04-2022

¶17

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner in AB No. 30(AP)/2022. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Superintendent of Police, Capital Complex, Itanagar as well as other police authorities under the Superintendent.

¶18

While entertaining the AB No. 30(AP)/2022, two disturbing situations were brought to the notice of the Court. The petitioner in AB No. 30(AP)/2022 had field an additional affidavit bringing on record a complaint dated 27.03.2022 made by the said petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Itanagar Capital Complex. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the complaint dated 27.03.2022 are extracted as below:

¶19

“1. However, to my utter shock and surprised that, after almost one month of an FIR dated 16.02.2022, I was telephonically informed by Shri Kenter Tacha, I.O. of the case on 14.03.2022 to be appeared before him on 15.03.2022. Accordingly, I being a law abiding citizen, on 15.03.2022, had voluntarily appeared before the said I.O and also received a notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code’ 1973. I was interrogated by Shri Kenter Tacha, I.O in presence of my husband and his family members for almost seven hours. Further, to my utter surprised that, Shri Kenter Tacha (I.O) forced me to sign on a papers alleged to have been a statement given by me. Hence, fear of his rude attitude, I was bound to put my signature on a paper. But, I don’t know, what was written by him upon which I was forced to put my signatures.

¶20

Therefore, considering the above stated fact of background the case, I would like to bring to your kind attention to ventilate few words for your kind

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

consideration with a folded had to change Shri Keter Tacha, SI from I.O of the present case for proper investigation of the case and for the ends of justice on the following grounds;

¶23

Thereafter, on 23.03.2022 I and my brother namely; Mr. Birun Camdir Nyare had applied for Anticipatory Bail application before the Hon’ble High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, Naharlagun. Accordingly, both of us were granted interim bail by the Hon’ble High Court with a direction to execute a bail bond amount of RS. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each. As such, on 24.03.2022 both of us appeared before Shri Kenter Tacha (I.O) of the case and executed our bail bond. On the same day, I was again interrogated by the said I.O. Further, to may utter surprised that, Shri Kenter Tacha (I.O) forced me to sign on a papers alleged to have been a statement given by me. Hence, fear of his rude attitude, I was bound to put my signature on a paper. But, I don’t know, what was written by him upon which I was forced to put my signatures.

¶24

That, again on 24.03.2022 I and my brother were again summon by Shri Kenter Tacha, the Investigating Officer of the present case to be appeared before him on 25.03.2022 at 10.00AM. As such, abide by the Hon’ble Court order dated 24.03.2022, I had appeared before Shri Kenter Tacha, I.O of the case and were thoroughly interrogated by him from morning 10.00 AM to till 5.00 PM. Further my brother namely, Mr Birun Camdir Nyare was interrogated by the IO from 6.00 PM to 9.00 PM and even tried to assault him physically. Again on 26.03.2022, the IO has summon my brother to appeared on 28.03.2022 at 10.00 Hrs. It is pertinent to mention herein that, in every interrogation period, I was surrounded my husband and his relatives inside the Interrogation room. The attitude of Shri Kenter Tacha (SI), investigation officer is doubtful and has been conducting a bias investigation of the case.

¶25

It is pertinent to mentioned herein that, all the relevant documents, upon which I wish to defend myself in the case, has been refused to receive by Shri Kenter Tacha (I.O) of the case. Hence, the integrity of Shri Kenter Tacha (Investigating Officer) is malafidy and suspicious. Furthermore, during the

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

course of investigation/ interrogation with my brother namely; Mr Birun Camdir Nyare, Shri Kenter Tacha (I.O) had snatched his mobile phone from his hand and took my Advocate phone number and spoke to him from police station phone No. 6009095588 without taking care of professional communication as provided under Indian Evidence Act’ 1873. Therefore, the manner in which, the I.O has been conducting interrogation has been causing mental and physical harassment. Further, after obtaining interim protection from the Hon’ble High Court, I have been summoned each and every day and have to undergo rigorous interrogation by the said I.O for more than 7 (seven) hours every day. Hence, it is earnestly prayed before your good office, to be pleased to change/remove Shri Kenter Tacha, SI from the investigating the present case.

¶28

That, it is further to mention herein that, Shri Kenter Tacha, SI on 21.03.2022 during the course of inquiry had given a big blow upon the face of Shri Sanjeev Kino. Furhter, Shri Kenter Tacha, SI had received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only from Shri Sanjeev Kino and also demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs) only from him through Mobile No. 9366417460. Shockinlgy, Shri Kenter Tacha, I.O had also physically assaulted Shri Dhan Bahadur Biswakarma and further, evern allowed the complainant namely, Smti Atak Kino to physically assault Miss Anu Ignti after being released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia on execution of PR Bond. Therefore, the conduct of the I.O of the instant case is mischievous, irrational and illegal in the eye of law. That, Shri Kenter Tacha, I.O of the case has deliberately violated the Hon’ble Supreme Court guidelines in the case of D.K. Basu Vrs Union of India. Furthermore, the immoral act of asking money from the alleged accused by the I.O is depreciating the highest integrity of the police administration of justice for the entire state.

¶29

Therefore, considering the above stated fact, your good office may be pleased to remove/change Shri Kenter Tacha, SI from the charge of conducting investigation of the Ita P.S. Case No. 57/2022, under Section: 427/447/453/380/34 IPC and my endorse other police officer as an I.O of the

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

case for proper and unbiased investigation of the case and for the ends of justice”.

¶32

If the allegation made in the complaint petition are found to be correct, these are serious allegation against the investigating officer of the case namely, S.I. Kenter Tacha. We particularly take note of the paragraph 5 of the complaint which states that the investigating officer S.I. Kenter Tacha snatch the mobile phone of Shri Birun Camder Nyare who is the brother of the petitioner Nirmali Nyare Kino and took the phone number of the learned advocate who appeared in the matter.

¶33

Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement before the Court that the investigating officer S.I. Kenter Tacha had called up in the mobile phone of his colleague advocate and use certain abusive and unwarranted language and also sought to restrain the learned counsel from presenting the bail application before the Court in the appropriate manner. The said act on the part of the investigating officer prima facie would also be a criminal contempt of this Court in causing obstruction to the administration of justice.

¶34

We are of the view that fundamentally no learned counsel can be compelled by any other person to either restrain his presentation before the Court or to present the case in any given manner or to regulate the presentation before the Court. Any such attempt would be a clear case a criminal contempt of the Court.

¶35

As required, the Superintendent of Police, Itanagar Capital Complex has forwarded a status report on the action that has been taken on the complaint dated 27.03.2022 filed by the petitioner Nirmali Nyari Kino. We have perused the status report.

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

The status report indicates that an enquiry had been ordered against the investigating officer S.I. Kenter Tacha to be conducted by DSP level officer, Shri Kamdam Sikom, who is presently the SDPO Itanagar.

¶38

As an enquiry had been already ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Itanagar Capital Complex, we do not proceed further to monitor the enquiry but we issue a direction that the enquiry that had been ordered against the investigating officer S.I. Kenter Tacha be brought to its logical end strictly by following the procedure of law and if the enquiry results in any kind of factual conclusion against the erring officer, appropriate proceeding be initiated against him. The conclusion of the enquiry and the action that may be taken be informed to the complainant Nirmali Nyare Kino for her satisfaction.

¶39

For the purpose of this order, the Registry to register a Suo-Motu writ petition and the order be recorded in such writ petition.

¶40

With the above observation, the writ petition also stands, accordingly, closed.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Xxx v. in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxx v. in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmali Nyare Kino Vs the State of Ap

Birun Camder Nyare Vs the State of Ap

Bijoy Chakraboty Vs the State of Ap

Vijay Kumar Chhetry Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Techi Deram Vs the State of Ap and Anr.