Madhya Pradesh High Court
Okendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 28 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5397 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
OKENDRA SINGH S/O MITRA PAL, AGED ABOUT 34
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O PALWAS
DISTRICT BHAWANI (HARYANA ) (HARYANA)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AYUR JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. S HO POLICE STATION PIPLANI, BHOPAL POLICE
STATION PIPLANI, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. S H O POLICE STATION SELAN, RATLAM POLICE
STATION SELAN RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHO POLICE STATION MISROD, BHOPAL POLICE
STATION MISROD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHO POLICE STATION JIRAPURA RAJGARH
POLICE STATION JIRAPURA RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILEEP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-07-2023
19:33:19
2
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to club various FIRs which are registered against the petitioner under Section 294 and 34 of the IPC for an incident which took place on 08.01.2023 and for which report was received by the concerned police station on 10.01.2023 at about 20:00 hrs. registering FIR No.0030 of 2023 at Police Station - Piplani, District - Bhopal.
It is submitted that the petitioner is an activist of 'Karni Sena'. Because of political opposition to the other side of ideology, the petitioner has been framed in multiple FIRs. It is submitted that for the same incident, multiple FIRs have been lodged, namely, Case Crime No.0030/2023 at police station - Piplani, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0006/2023 at police station - Selan, district - Ratlam, Case Crime No.0040/2023 at police station - Piplani, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0018/2023 at police station - Misrod, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0010/2023 at police station - Jeerapur, district - Rajgarh. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 897 and reading paragraphs 22 and 24 it is pointed out that "a fair investigative process would require that the entirety of the investigation in all the FIRs should be consolidated and entrusted to one investigating authority. The overlap in the FIRs, emanating as they do from the tweets of the petitioner, only goes to emphasize the need for a consolidated, as opposed to piece-meal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies."
Similarly reliance has been placed in the judgment of the Supreme Court N.V. sharma v. Union of India and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1003 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that all FIRs in Nupur Sharma Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 28-07-2023 19:33:19 3 Prophet Remarks case be clubbed and be tried by IFSO Unit of Delhi police. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Navika Kumar v. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1289 wherein again in the matter of Prophet Remarks case it was directed that all the FIRs against the journalist be clubbed. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that the petitioner's case is similar. He has falsely been implicated.
Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State has filed reply. It is submitted that paragraphs 3, 10 and 11 are relevant for the purpose of the present controversy. Reading from paragraph 3 of the reply filed by the State Government on 25.07.2023, it is evident that a preliminary objection is taken in regard to maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that at the stage of investigation, the petitioner has no right to be heard. To buttress his submission, reliance has been place in the case of Narendra Ji Goyal v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 65. It is submitted that it is held in the said judgment that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. Similarly reliance is place in the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 754 wherein in paragraph 30 it is mentioned that the accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do the investigation in a particular manner. Similarly in paragraph 10 of the reply, a stand is taken that the present petition is devoid of merits and reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158 wherein the Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that "different people have alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent and the company and, therefore, each offence is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 28-07-2023 19:33:19 4 district one and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of facts/transaction." It will not be out of context to mention here that the judgment has been quoted out of context inasmuch as the word 'distinct' has been typed as 'district' by the learned Advocate who prepared the reply. In paragraph 11 again referring to Rajesh Syal's case, it is stated that the judgment in the case of V.K. Sharma is not a precedent and, therefore, the same should not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more over judgments in V.K. Sharma and P.K. Sharma, have been overruled.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going thorugh the record, certain facts are important to be mentioned. In the FIR which is filed along with the petition and is read over by Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, the incident took place in the intervening night of 07.01.2023 and 08.01.2023 when concerned ASI Ajay Kumar Nair had visited Jumburi Maidan and identified the petitioner. There are allegations that he was using abusive language against one of the public functionaries of the State. The FIR is registered for offence punishable under Section Section 294 of the IPC and Section 34 of the IPC. Section 294 of the IPC deals with obscene acts and songs. The punishment which is prescribed is imprisonment for three months or with fine or with both. The offence is cognizable, bailable but non- compoundable. Other FIRs also reveal the same cause of action. This fact which is not disputed by Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Depty Advocate general for the State. When this aspect is taken into consideration then the judgments cited by learned Deputy Advocate General are of no assistance. The ratio in the cases of Narendra Ji Goyal (supra) and Romila Thapar (supra) is two fold: there is no need to hear the accused at the time of investigation; and the accused cannot ask for change of investigating agency. None of the prayers of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 28-07-2023 19:33:19 5 the petitioner is to the effect either to give opportunity of hearing at the time investigation or to change the investigating agency. Therefore, it is apparent that the State has failed to understand pulse of the case. It has made generalised statement in paragraph 3 of its reply. The prayer is only to club the various FIRs. Thus, the reply in paragraph 3 is not relevant to the controversy involved and thus, the ratio of judgment laid down in the cases of Narendra Ji Goel and Romila Thapar will have not applicability to the facts of the present case.
As far as the contention of the petitioner that in the case of Rajesh Syal (supra) in paragraph 7 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that different people alleged to be defrauded by the respondent and the company and each of the offence is distinct one and cannot be regarded to be constituting single series of facts/transaction is concerned, the same again reflects poor understanding of fact at the end of the State. In the present case, all the FIRs reveal the incident to be the same which had taken place at Jamburi Maidan in the intervening night of 07.01.2023 and 08.01.2023. Thus, when there is single incident then ratio of law laid down in the case of of Rajesh Syal will not too be applicable because in that case different persons were defrauded at different places and therefore, each of the complainants had right to lodge FIR as per his individual transaction.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that taking this fact into consideration Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed Jabair, Navika Kumar, and N.V. Sharma (supra) has shown indulgence of clubbing the FIRs and has directed to carry out one single investigation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohammed Jabair (supra) has made clear observation in paragraph 24 that such acts need for a consolidated as opposed to piece-meal Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 28-07-2023 19:33:19 6 investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies I am of the opinion that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed Jabair, Navika Kumar, and N.V. Sharma (supra), the petitioner's case being on the identical footing it is directed that State Authorities may get the investigation carried out by any one of the investigators of their choice but there will be a consolidated investigation in the matter of FIRs registered in Case Crime No.0030/2023 at police station - Piplani, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0006/2023 at police station - Selan, district - Ratlam, Case Crime No.0040/2023 at police station - Piplani, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0018/2023 at police station - Misrod, district - Bhopal, Case Crime No.0010/2023 at police station - Jeerapur, district - Rajgarh In the above terms, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the manner and methodology of the investigation. It has only clubbed the FIRs and has directed for single investigation.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ks Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 28-07-2023 19:33:19