Chattisgarh High Court
Dhananjay Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2023
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
WPCR No. 121 of 2017
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on : 13/01/2023
Order passed on : 20 /01/2023
WPCR No. 121 of 2017
Dhananjay Kumar S/o Radhoram Bhagat Aged About 50 Years R/o
Muhalla Maanpur Kumar Toli, Post Buniyadganj, Police Station Mofsil,
District Gaya, Bihar., Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate.
For Respondents/State: Mr. Surdeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
CAV Order
Per Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to register an FIR and to arrest Mr. Mithilesh Kumar and his family members and further a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to take strict action against respondent No.3 who has not discharged his duties in fair manner.
2WPCR No. 121 of 2017
2. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner is father of Priyanka Kumari who was married to one Mithilesh Kumar on 30-11-2014 in accordance with Hindu rituals. The petitioner is resident of Gaya (Bihar) and after marriage his daughter came to Raipur (C.G.) in her matrimonial house. There is one child out of their wedlock born on 07-09-2015. The petitioner has further pleaded that after sometime Mithilesh Kumar and his family members started making demand and Priyanka Kumari was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment. On 23-10-2015 Priyanka Kumari came back to her matrimonial home along with her husband and child and in February 2016 she went to her paternal home with consent of in-laws. On 01-03-2016, 25-03-2016 and 16-06-2016 threatening of life was extended to her by her husband and in-laws and therefore, an application was moved to the Secretary of President of Gaya Panchayat on 30-06-2016. A meeting was held there and on 25-07- 2016 she came back to her matrimonial house along with her husband. On 28-10-2016 the petitioner received a phone call regarding demise of his daughter. On 02-11-2016 an application was moved by the petitioner for postmortem of his daughter. Consequently, the postmortem was conducted and report was also given, according to which cause of the death was asphyxia on account of hanging. On 21-11-2016 the petitioner filed a written complaint before the respondent authorities making allegation of murder against Mithilesh Kumar and his family members.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the complaint has been made to the police authorities, but FIR has not been registered till date.
3WPCR No. 121 of 2017
4. The State has filed it return where it is stated that the petitioner has remedy to prefer complaint before the Superintendent of Police, according to the provision of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and he may file a complaint case before the competent Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others1, Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P2 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that merg intimation No.74/2016 was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and enquiry was conducted. The police has prima facie found evidence for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and the same has been registered against husband of the deceased, namely, Mithilesh Prajapati on 23-05-2017. It is further stated that by the counsel for the State that the relief sought by the petitioner has been redressed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
6. From the record it appears that the daughter of the petitioner was married to one Mithilesh Kumar Prajapati on 30-11-2014. There is an issue from their wedlock. It is also not in dispute that on 28-10-2016 the daughter of the petitioner died due to hanging and in postmortem cause of death as opined by the doctor was asphyxia due to hanging. The police after conducting the merg enquiry registered the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband of the 1 (2007) 6 SCC 171 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 3 (2016) (6) SCC 277 4 WPCR No. 121 of 2017 deceased. Regarding grievance of the petitioner he may move application before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge if he is not satisfied with the offence registered by the police in FIR and charge sheet. The petitioner may also move application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which is regarding power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence, before the court concerned. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a direction for registration of FIR, but the police after due investigation has already registered FIR against Mithilesh Kumar Prajapati, i.e., husband of the deceased. It is not a case where police has not conducted any investigation. The police after merg enquiry, after recording statement of the witnesses and enquiring the entire case has registered the offence against someone, which cannot be doubted in absence of sufficient material. However, considering the above facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, if so advised. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Judge
Aadil