Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Ruchita Awadhiya @ Ruchita Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2017

                                           :: 1 ::
                             Writ Petition No.9519/2016




1.2.2017.

                  Shri Sampoorn Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner.

                  Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State of

M.P. and its functionaries.

None for the other respondents.

Petitioner, vide present petition, seeks following reliefs :

(1) to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to register an FIR pursuant to complaint dated 19.3.2016 and 28.3.2016 made by petitioner.

(2) to call for entire material record pertaining to enquiry conducted by respondent No.5 Mahila Thana Jabalpur.

(3) to order that a high ranking police officer, not below the rank of Additional S.P. shall investigate into the FIR to be registered by the police pursuant to complaint dated 19.3.2016 and 28.3.2016. (4) to order to respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to provide all the stridhan, valuable ornaments which is in the custody of respondent No.6.

(5) to provide proper protection and security to petitioner and her family.

(6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

The relief is sought on the basis of allegations that the petitioner has been subjected to assault, extortion, causing miscarriage, illegally abortion, threat and forcefully obtained signature upon the divorce deed, wherein active role has been played by respondents No.6 to 10. Various further allegations :: 2 ::

have been levelled in the petition for alleged commission of offence by these respondents.

Grievance of the petitioner is that despite written complaint lodged by the petitioner in respect of offence committed by respondents No.6 to 10, no action has been taken by the Police Authorities. Aggrieved whereof, present petition is filed.

Notices were issued to the respondents. Official respondents viz. respondents No.1 to 5 have filed their return, supported by an affidavit sworn in by Hari Om Sharma, City Superintendent of Police Kotwali Jabalpur. It is stated therein that since complaint filed by the petitioner was relating to alleged commission of offence at Dindori, the same was forwarded to Station House Officer, Police Station Dindori on 12.2.2016. On receiving the complaint, SHO Dindori caused an inquiry whereupon he came across that missing person report has been lodged by petitioner's husband on 18.2.2016. It is further stated that subsequently, petitioner appeared at Police Station Dindori along with one Rahul. The petitioner was allowed to talk to her mother telephonically; however, she refused to go to the mother's place as the petitioner was not ready to stay with her husband. Her statement to that effect was recorded on 24.2.2016. It is urged that being a major, petitioner was allowed to go with said Rahul. Supurdginama to that effect was executed on 18.2.2016 which is brought on record :: 3 ::

as Annexure R/4. It is further contended that on the basis of statement of petitioner and other proceedings undertaken by SHO of Police Station Dindori, investigation report was returned to SHO of Kotwali Jabalpur on 21.11.2016. It is also contended that on complaint made by petitioner, the matter was also examined by Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and it came to the conclusion that no cognizable office having been made out; therefore, declined to register any offence. It is on the basis of these contentions, it is stated on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 that relief as sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted upon that reply should be sought from respondents No.6 to 10 which, in the considered opinion of this Court and in the given facts of the present case, is not warranted, because present petition is not in respect of adjudicating the alleged offence reported by petitioner but to examine as to whether a case is made out by her to direct the Police to register the crime.

As the inquiry has already been conducted by the Police and no cognizable offence is found to have been committed by respondents No.6 to 10, mandamus as sought cannot be issued.

Reliance is placed on the decision in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 which, in the given facts of the present case, wherein inquiry having been conducted and no :: 4 ::

cognizable offence is found to have been committed by respondents No.6 to 10, is of no assistance to the petitioner.

However, in view of the decisions rendered in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542, Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim AIR 2010 SC 1671 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016) 6 SCC 277, petitioner can move appropriate forum in accordance with law for redressal of her grievance.

In the given facts of the present case, since no direction can be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to register the crime, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

                                                    (SANJAY YADAV)
vinod                                                   JUDGE