Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi@Ravindra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C.No.47899/2020
(Ravi alias Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench:Dated -22/04/2021
Shri Deepak Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Alok Sharma, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant. Matter is heard through Video Conferencing. Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking following reliefs:
^^vr% izkFkZuk gS fd vkosnd }kjk izLrqr vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 482 tk-Qk- Lohdkj dh tkdj vukosnd dzekad 1 o
2 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd ?kVuk fnukad 2-4-2019 dks vkosnd ,oa mlds lkFk jkeflag dq'kokg] jkeHkjksls lsu ds eksckbZy uEcj 7610150291] 8966853652] 9691893077 dh yksds'ku dh tkap djds yksds'ku fjiksVZ vkosnd dks fn;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA^^ It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is facing trial for the offence under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 of IPC vide Crime No.55/2019 and case is pending before the Sessions Court, Ashoknagar. It is further submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of time when alleged offence was committed was present at the place, which is at some different place, therefore, he is raising the plea of alibi. He referred Metadata report of co-accused Surendra produced by Cyber Crime Cell, Bhopal whereby Metadata report of his HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.47899/2020 (Ravi alias Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.) photographs indicate that he was at some difference place, other than the place of incident. Therefore, petitioner seeks report from the police/service provider of his mobile location because it is a defence of petitioner that his mobile location indicates that he was at some different place, than the place of incident.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a matter of trial and plea of alibi so raised can only be considered in trial.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State however fairly submits that if possible then mobile location report from the concerned service provider shall be tried to be requisitioned by the police authorities in accordance with law.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is a case where petitioner is seeking report from police as well as service provider about his mobile location and he intends to raise this point in his defence. Without going into the authenticity or credibility of the said submission (which are to be decided by the trial Court on its own merits), however, it appears that it is the duty of the police to cause investigation with HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C.No.47899/2020 (Ravi alias Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.) scientific mode so that truth may come to the fore. Duty of the Investigating Officer is not to implicate but to investigate as per law and established procedure.
Considering the fact situation, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the said plea by moving an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. or any other provision in accordance with law before the trial Court and the trial Court after considering the fact situation as well as other documents available on record, take suitable decision including direction to the authorities concerned for requisition of mobile location report from the concerned service provider if Court finds to do so in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
(Anand Pathak)
Judge
Anil*
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
KUMAR
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
CHAURAS st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802
d068b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0
IYA
799e67cdc7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Date: 2021.04.23 07:37:28 -07'00'