Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhinav Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2017
WP-18418-2015
(ABHINAV MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-02-2017
Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder; however, it is borne out from the order dated 11.11.2016 that on time being sought by the petitioner to file rejoinder the same was granted with stipulation that if rejoinder is not filed by next date , i.e., by 28.11.2016 right to file rejoinder shall stand closed. As the petitioner has not filed the rejoinder despite said stipulation no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder. Right to file rejoinder stands closed.
Heard on admission.
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following reliefs:
âi. A writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 2and 3 to comply with the judgment passed by Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 333/2007.
ii. A command to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give protection to the petitioner during the investigation conducted on the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. iii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
Evidently the relief as sought on the basis of observation made by Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 333/2007 in paragraph 26 and 27 th of his judgment dated 19 August 2008, which are in following terms:
^^26- tIrh i= iz0ih0 8 ds vuqlkj e`rd ds HkkbZ v#.k dqekj 'kqDyk ls fnukad 14-04-06 dks e`rd pUnzdkUr 'kqDyk ds gLrfyf[kr ikdsV Mk;jh tIr dh xbZ gS] ftls v#.k dqekj 'kqDyk ¼v0lka07½ us rFkk mifujh{kd Mh0ih0 frokjh ¼v0lka018½ us iapk;r dk;kZy; dh dk;Zokgh iath tIrh i= iz0ih0 9 ds vuqlkj tIr fd;s tkus dh lk{; nh gSA mDRk dk;Zokgh dh iath dh tIrh iz0ih0 9 dh iqf"V lk{kh izdk'k 'kqDyk ¼v0lka0 13½ Hkh djrk gSA mDr iz0ih0 9 ds vuqlkj tIr dk;Zokgh dh iath rFkk iz0ih0 8 ds vuqlkj tIr ikdsV Mk;jh nksuksa dh gh gLrfyfi rFkk gLrk{kj e`rd pUnzdkUr 'kqDyk dh gksuk vfHk;kstu dgkuh esa nf'kZr fd;k x;k gSA mDRk Mk;jh esa ys[k D;w 1 ,oa D;w 2 dk gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK ls tkap djk;s tkus ij dk;Zokgh jftLVj ds e`rd }kjk izekf.kr ys[k ,oa gLrk{kj] mDRk Mk;jh ds ys[k ,oa gLrk{kj ls esy gksuk ik;s x;s gSaA vr% ;g Ik;kZIr #i ls izekf.kr gS fd e`rd dh ikdsV Mk;jh esa ys[k D;w01 ,oa D;w02 e`rd }kjk gh fy[ks x;s gS ,oa gLrk{kj fd;s x;s gSa] ftlesa e`rd }kjk fnukad 17-01-03 dks ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS& ^^i`Foh ds vanj fdlh ls Hkh eq>s [kljk ugha gS dfi/ot flag rkyk gkml ds vkneh dgha Hkh esjh e`R;q dj ldrs gS] cgqr tYnhA^^ vFkkZr e`rd dks Lo;a dh gR;k dk lansg FkkA e`rd ds HkkbZ v#.k dqekj 'kqDyk ¼v0lka07½ us ;g lk{; nh gS fd 8 ekg igys e`rd dks ckj xksyh yxh Fkh rFkk bls Hk; yxk jgrk FkkA mDr iksdsV Mk;jh ds ys[k rFkk e`rd ds HkkbZ v#.k dqekj 'kqDYkk ¼v0lka07½ dh lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr & ik;k tkrk gS fd ?kVuk ds 8 ekg igys Hkh vKkr O;fDr }kjk e`rd dks xksyh ekjh xbZ Fkh ftlesa e`rd dh tku cp xbZ Fkh rFkk Mk;jh esa of.kZr dfi/ot flag ls e`rd dks vius tku ds [krjs dk lansg FkkA^^ 27- gkykafd vfHk;kstu us mDRk Mk;jh ds lansg ds ys[k ds laca/k esa dksbZ foospuk ugha dh gS rFkk ek= vfHk;qDRk laxe flag ds fo#) gh vfHk;ksx i= is'k fd;k x;k gS ] tcfd iqfyl }kjk vfHk;qDr laxe flag ds fy;s x;s eseksjs.Me ij dFku iz0ih0 23 esa ;g ys[k gS fd vfHk;qDr eksVjlk;fdy pyk jgk Fkk] lkFk esa mldk iqjkuk nksLr cSBk Fkk vkSj mlh iqjkus nksLr us e`rd dks xksyh ekjh gSA fdUrq iqfyl us vfHk;qDr laxe flag dk nksLr] gksus ds ckotwn mDRk xksyh ekjus okys eq[; vijk/kh ds ckjs esa Hkh dksbZ tkap ugha dh gS vkSj u gh vfHk;qDr laxe flag rFkk mDr vKkr lg vfHk;qDr dks gR;k djus ds fy;s Hkstus okys ?kVuk ds lw=k/kkj eq[; vijk/kh ds laca/k esa dksbZ tkap dh gSA^^s Responding to the notice issued, respondents have filed reply supported by an affidavit by Shri Bharat Dubey, City Superintendent of Police, Rewa wherein in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 it is stated:
â5. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the order of the learned Sessions Judge the matter was again enquired into and while initiating disciplinary action against the erring police officials, vide letter dt. 28.2.2009 the then SDO (P), Beohari was directed to again investigate the matter. A copy of the letter dated 28.2.2009 is filed herewith as Annexure R-1.
Vide letter 26.5.2009 the then SDO (P) Beohari submitted his investigation report/representation. In the said report, in respect of Paragraph 26 of the Judgment of learned Sessions Judge it is mentioned that in his pocket diary the deceased/ Chandrakant Shukla has written that he has no danger in the earth, the person of Kapildhaj Singh Tala House, Rewa can cause may death at any time.
After submitting investigation report by the SDO (P) Beohari the police has tried to enquire from Kapildhwaj Singh. As Kiapildhwaj Singh Tala House, Rewa was in Jail in another criminal case, therefore, investigation officer went to Rewa and permission was sought by submitting an application from CJM, Rewa for enquiry from him. The said application of the investigation officer was rejected by the Court of CJM, Rewa and Special Judge, Rewa. Again investigation officer went to Jabalpur and submitted an application before the CJM, Jabalpur for the purpose of the investigation. The said application was also rejected by the CJM Jabalpur on the ground that the accused was not involved in the crime at Jabalpur. Thus, the investigating officer made each and every effort to interrogate Kalildhwaj Singh Tala House, but, due to non-grant of permission by the Courts he could not meet/interrogate with Kapildhwaj Singh. So far as paragraph 27 of the Judgment of the learned Sessions is concerned, it is submitted that when the accused Sangam Singh was taken on P.R as per Court order, during enquiry he said in his memorandum that he does not know the name of old friend who was siting backside of the motor cycle and committed murder of Chandrakant Shukla by revolver and accordingly he accepted his guilt. Hence, on these two points no illegality was found to be committed by the investigation officer while conducting the investigation.
6. That, thereafter vide letter dt. 25.6.2009 of the office of S.P. Shahdol, the then SDO (P) Beohari was directed to investigation and file challan in Crime No. 40/2006 under Sections 307, 302, 34 IPC and 173 (8) Cr.P.C Copy of letter dt. 25.6.2009 is filed herewith as Annexure R-2. The then SDO (P) Beohari vide his letter dt. 8.5.2010 informed that in the investigation no new ground came in the light and therefore preparation of challan under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C is not possible. A copy of letter dt. 8.5.2010 is filed herewith as Annexure R-3.
7. It is relevant to mention here that vide order dated 3.5.2008 passed by PHQ Bhopal, punishment of withholding of one increment has already been imposed upon the erring police officials who were found negligent during the course of investigation in Crime No. 40/2006, offences under Sections 307, 302 and 34 IPC. A copy of the order dt. 3.5.2008 is filed herewith as Annexure R-4.
The answering respondents hereby file a copy of the report/representation about the investigation of the matter submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol to the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Coordination) for Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, PHQ Bhopal is Annexure R-5.
6. In view of the submissions made herein above and the documents brought on record, it is clear that in pursuance to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, proper investigation has already been carried out by the Police and the contention of the petitioner that the police is not complying the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct.â as to the steps taken by the respondents on the basis of observations made in paragraph 26 and 27 of the judgment. In view of the steps taken by respondents, this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 333/2007 has been complied with as would warrant any interference.
The petition stands disposed of finally in above terms.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vivek