Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1512
1 WP-14630-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14630 of 2023
NARENDRA KAURAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Surya Pratap Singh Adv appeared for respondent.
ORDER
The instant peti6tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"i. Respondent(s) be directed to issue appropriate protective measures under the Witness Protection Scheme inter-alia including considering relocating the Respondent no. 4's at far distance from the vicinity of the Petitioner; and / or ii. Impugned Order Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed; and /or iii. Respondent(s) be directed to conduct the departmental enquiry in free, fair, impartial and timebound manner; and / or iv. That, the cost of the present petition may kindly be provided to the petitioner."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted before this Court that relief as claimed with regard to challenge to the order of revocation of suspension of the petitioner is wholly misconceived, as the petitioner, who was a complainant in criminal matter registered against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 1/29/2025 6:08:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1512 2 WP-14630-2023 petitioner cannot seek writ of mandamas as well as writ of certiorari for quashing the order of revocation of suspension in the writ petition.
3. It was further argued that with regard to giving protection under the witness protection scheme of the State framed in the light of judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Mahendra Chawala vs Union of India reported i n 2018 SCC Online SC 2679 , the petitioner is free to move appropriate application before the Committee constituted by the State Government under the scheme of witness protection and thereafter, after scrutiny of the said application, police protection can be granted to the petitioner in case, it appears to the committee that there is a threat to the petitioner from respondent No.4.
4. None for the petitioner.
5. So far as the relief of quashment of the order of revocation of suspension of respondent No.4 is concerned, this Court is in consonance with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents and holds that this is not a remedy challenging the same, thus, to this extent the petition has no merits.
6. With regard to extending the protection to the petitioner in the light of witness protection scheme as formulated by the State Government, the petitioner is free to move appropriate application before the committee constituted by the State Government under the said scheme for protecting him against respondent No.4 during the trial conducted against him and in case, such an application is moved the said committee shall after considering the merits of the matter may grant him the protection. This aspect of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 1/29/2025 6:08:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1512 3 WP-14630-2023 matter can also not be decided in favour of present petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merits is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 1/29/2025 6:08:40 PM