Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2023

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                             ON THE 29 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 20379 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          GANESH S/O RAMCHARAN AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 50
                          Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:  LABOUR     VILLAGE
                          MALHALWADA      TEHSIL  BANKHEDI   DISTRICT
                          NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI K.K. GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                SECRETARY   OF   HOME    DEPARTMENT
                                MANTRALAY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARMADAPURAM
                                DISTRICT    NARMADAPURAM        (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAIL,
                                J A B A L P U R DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GRP            PIPARIYA
                                DISTRICT   NARMADAPURAM               (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    GOPAL AHIRWAR S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35
                                YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHANDELI, P.S. SOHAGPUR
                                DISTRICT      NARMADAPURAM         (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
                          NOS.1 TO 4/STATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 8/31/2023
10:42:37 AM
                                                                2
                          following:
                                                                ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is asking for registration of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.5. He submits although as per the police, the death of his son occurred due to train accident, but the surrounding circumstances indicate that it is not a case of train accident whereas it is a case of murder and, therefore, offence under Section 302 of IPC registered.

2. Shri Shroti, appearing for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and read over the case diary and as per his submission, the police has investigated the matter in all angles and finally it is found that it is not a case of murder, but it is a case of train accident. He has also read over the query report and also the enquiry report in which it is shown that the injuries sustained by the deceased can come due to train accident.

3. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and only on the basis of apprehension, the investigation conducted by the police officers cannot be doubted unless any specific material is available to convince the court that the investigation has not been done properly and the conclusion of the police could be otherwise. Here in this case, there is no material available and produced by the petitioner to draw attention of the Court that the investigation has not been done properly. Under such circumstances, in every matter or that too only a doubt created in the mind of the petitioner, further investigation cannot be ordered or the investigation already done cannot be transferred to any other special agency to inquire about the correctness of the case. As such, I do not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 8/31/2023 10:42:37 AM 3 find any substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and at the same time, I do not doubt upon the investigating officer and the investigation conducted by him.

4. With the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 8/31/2023 10:42:37 AM