Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramnaresh Singh Sikarwar on 7 November, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46624 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CID
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMNARESH SINGH SIKARWAR S/O GAJRAJ
SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R / O NEW HOUSING BOARD COLONY CIVIL
LINE MORENA AT PRESENT T.R. PURAM P.S.
KOTWALI DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT MAMTA SHARMA W/O SHRI
MAHENDRA SHARMA R/O NEW COLONY
NO.1, BIRLANAGAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MAHENDRA SHARMA S/O SHRI MISHRI LAL
OCCUPATION: RETIRED D.S.P., M.P. POLICE,
R/O NEW COLONY NO.1, BIRLA NAGAR,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 07-11-2023
07:27:57 PM
2
(BY SHRI HARSHIT SHARMA- ADVOCATE FOR CONTESTING
RESPONDENT NO.1)
(NONE FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3)
T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e court
passed the following:
ORDER
1. The present petition is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh through Superintendent of Police, District Morena, Dy. Superintendent of Police, CID, District Gwalior as well as SHO, Police Station-Civil Lines, District Morena under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for placing the correct facts on record for incorporation of such facts in the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in MCRC No.6914 of 2022. Those facts are material and required to be incorporated in the litigation/record so that appropriate order including the modification can be ensured.
2. Facts, in brief, are that son of respondent No.1 (complainant) and respondent No.2 were allegedly in relationship and were possessive about each other. When detected by the members of family, then respondent No.3(husband of respondent No.2), who was in police services, tried to intervene and later on, at his instance, a complaint was filed vide Crime No.20/2022 at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 384 and 506 of IPC. That matter was under
investigation. Meanwhile, son of respondent No.1 committed suicide, therefore apparently that matter stood abated. Since, son of respondent No.1 committed suicide, therefore, at the instance of respondent No.1, as father of deceased, a complaint was filed for offence under Sections 306 and 388 of the IPC against respondent No.2 and 3. Incidentally, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 07-11-2023 07:27:57 PM 3 respondent No.3 has also expired in an accident during investigation.
3 . Since, police was proceedings with the investigation, pace of which was not found to be acceptable to the respondent No.1, therefore, he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. vide MCRC No.6914/2022 before this Court and vide order dated 19.07.2023, a direction was given to CID to make all possible and positive efforts for arrest of accused persons and in absence thereof, proceedings under Section 82/84 of Cr.P.C. was directed to be ensured. This is the bone of contention.
4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, investigation was carried out in which it is found that respondent No.3 has expired and so far as role of respondent No.2 is concerned, it was not found to be sufficient enough to array her as an accused in the charge-sheet. Petitioners intend to file Closure Report (Khatma report) before the competent court of law, but predicament is the observation made in the said order dated 19.07.2023 passed by this Court whereby direction was given to take care of accused persons, if they are absconding. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant fairly submitted that so far as scope of investigation is concerned, it is always the domain of investigating officer. If any Khatma report is filed, then respondent No.1 shall file objections, if advised so, in accordance with law. His role is confined to that extent only.
6 . Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 07-11-2023 07:27:57 PM 47. After considering the peculiar fact situation in the case where an otherwise innocuous order was obtained by the respondent No.1 at the relevant point of time and incidentally, at that point of time, officers already came to the conclusion regarding filing of Khatma report but due to inadvertence, the said fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court and, therefore, an expectation has been raised as referred above regarding proceedings under Section 82/84 of the Cr.P.C. and possible arrest. Now, investigating officer has already decided to file Khatma report and respondent No.2 has already been exonerated from the clutches of investigation, then order dated 19.07.2023 has to pale into oblivion not to haunt anybody in the interest of justice because reason is obvious. One accused has expired and another accused has been exonerated in investigation. It was case of communication gap per se, at the time of hearing of the case.
8 . In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this petition stands allowed and order dated 19.07.2023 is hereby modified to the extent that petitioners are at liberty to file Khatma report in accordance with law and respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to react to it in accordance with law, if advised so.
9. Petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 07-11-2023 07:27:57 PM