Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Verma vs Home Department on 7 February, 2018
9
W.P. No.1016/2016
(Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Indore dated 7.02.2018
Shri Praveen Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6/State.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8.
Heard.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs :-
07- lgk;rk %& ;g gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj Qjekdj ;kfpdkdrkZ ds i{k esa ,oa jsLikaMsaVx.k ds fo:) fuEu vk'k; dh fjV vkKk tkjh dh tkosa fd%& 01- ;g gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ds iq= euh"k dh fnukad 07- 12-2013 o fnukad 08-12-2013 dh njfe;kuh jkr dks jgL;e; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gqbZ eqR;q ds laca/k esa lw{e foospuk o vuqla/kku dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjksa ;k izns'k dh vU; dksbZ Lora= ofj"B iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh ekuhVfjax esa ,susDlj ih&7 ds vkosnu i= esa mYysf[kr fcanqvksa ij lw{e vuqla/kku dj vfrfjDr ¼iwjd½ pkyku leLr lafyIr vijkf/k;ksa rFkk vijkf/k;ksa dks cpkus okys iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;ksx i= lafLFkr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa fjV vkKk tkjh djus dh d`ik djsaA 02- ;g gS fd vU; tks Hkh U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks i'pkr~orhZ vfHkopuksa ls mitrh gks] ,slh leLr lgk;rk tks ekaxus ls NwV xbZ gks ftls izkIr djus dh ;kfpdkdrkZ oS/k vf/kdkjh gksA ,slh leLr lgk;rk,s ;kfpdkdrkZ dks jsLikaMsaVx.k ls bl ;kfpdk esa gksus okys leLr O;; lfgr fnyok;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA
2. Earlier also he filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by order dated 12/03/2015, passed in W.P. No.4205/2014. He challenged the said order by filing a writ appeal(W.A. No.221/2015). The Division bench by order dated 7/10/2015 disposed of the writ appeal. Order dated 7/10/2015 reads as under :-
9 W.P. No.1016/2016(Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) By this writ appeal, the petitioner Mohan Lal Verma has challenged the order dated 12/3/2015 passed in WP No. 4205/2014.
The grievance of petitioner is that on account of unfortunate death of his son he had filed various applications before the authorities alleging that his son had been murdered whereas the crime has been registered against the widow Smt. Varsha and one Sudip only for offence under Section 306 IPC. The investigation was done in haste and petitioner did not have any other opportunity and remedy however, the learned Judge directed filing of application before the trial court for further investigation as well as for adding other offences. And being dissatisfied with the order, the present appeal has been filed.
Counsel for appellant has vehemently urged relying upon judgment of Apex court in the matter of Chandra Babu @ Moses Vs. State Through Inspect of of Police and others, reported in (2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 699 that the Apex court has also stated that the Magistrate can always direct re-investigation and petitioner had a right under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to seek further investigation and re-investigation. Same ratio has been reiterated in the matters of Kedarnath Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 1 MPHT 233 and in Ramswarup Vs. State of MP and others, reported in (2011) 2 MPHT 307.
Counsel submits that CBI be directed to enquire further in the matter and the widow Varsha and co-accused Sudip be proceeded in accordance with the provision of law and duly convicted and punished.
Counsel for State has opposed the submission and supported the order of learned Single Judge and has submitted that the Magistrate would have power to re-investigate the matter under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Considering the above submission we find that the impugned order does not call for any 9 W.P. No.1016/2016 (Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) interference and the appeal can be disposed of with direction to the learned Magistrate to look into the matter and if it is necessary call for the report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. from the investigating agency. The petitioner shall be free to approach this Court again if he feels aggrieved by the report or order of the learned Magistrate. The writ appeal is disposed of with the following direction:-
The Second Additional Sessions Judge i.e. the Trial court is directed to seek a fresh police report regarding the investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. with proper regard to the complaint of the appellant. And upon completion of the fresh investigation, a copy of the report be handed over to the appellant/complainant and if the appellant is still aggrieved he is free to approach the Court in accordance with the provision of law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. A copy of the written report of compliance be also sent to this court.
With the aforesaid directions this writ appeal stands disposed.
C.C. as per rules.
3. The S.L.P has been filed by one Sudeep Sharma vide Petition (s) for Special leave to Appeal(Crl.)..CRLMP No(s) 20129/2015.
4. On 30/11/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order and with clarification, disposed of the same. Order dated 30/11/2015 reads as under :-
Petitioner is permitted to file the special leave petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.9 W.P. No.1016/2016
(Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) However, keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in Virender Prasad Singh vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj and others (2010) 9 SCC 171, we consider it just and appropriate to clarify that the term "fresh investigation" used in the impugned order in its penultimate paragraph be read as "further investigation" and/or additional investigation."
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
5. After finality of the issue, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the Central Bureau of Investigation be directed to investigate the matter or investigation be made by an independent Senior Police Officer as well as seeking for submitting supplementary charge sheet with regard to the incident took place between the mid-night of 7.12.2013 and 8.12.2013 on the ground that his son was murdered by his wife as well as her family members.
6. On the intervening night night between 7.12.2013 and 8.12.2013 dead body of petitioner's son was found in railway track and after merg investigation, offence under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the respondent Nos.7 and 8 and, thereafter, on 30.08.2014 challan was filed under section 306 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the circumstantial evidence it is a case under Section 302 of IPC, but the Police Authority has wrongly submitted charge-sheet under Section 306 of IPC.
8. As per record, the dead body of Manish Verma, son of petitioner Mohanlal Verma was found on railway track and after submitting a complaint by the petitioner, FIR under Section 306 9 W.P. No.1016/2016 (Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) of IPC was registered against the private respondent Nos.7 and 8.
9. During the investigation, the statements were recorded by the Police Authority and no such evidence was found which shows for submitting charge-sheet under section 302 of IPC. On 24.03.2014, statement under Section 164 (Annexure-R/1) of Ms. Sharda W/o Dashrath was recorded which does not reveal that any offence under Section 302 of IPC was made out.
10. After filing of final report on 30.08.2014, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.4203/2014. On 12.07.2015 vide Annexure P/4, the said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file appropriate application before the Competent Court under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Relevant part of the order passed by the writ court on 12.03.2015 reads as under :-
In the present case, on account of unfortunate death of petitioner's son, petitioner is aggrieved and has filed various applications before the authorities alleging that his son has been murdered. Crime was registered by the police authorities and after investigating the matter they have registered a case against the wife of the deceased Varsha and against one Sudeep undersection 306 of IPC. After concluding the investigation, challan has also been field in the matter. The petitioner is certainly having a remedy to approach the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for further investigation as well as for adding other offences.
Keeping in view the aforesaid fact that challan has also been filed and matter has throughly been investigated, no further orders are required to be passed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application keeping in view the the provisions of 9 W.P. No.1016/2016 (Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in case such applications are preferred, the trial court shall without any delay shall dispose of the application by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law.
Certified copy, as per rules.
11. After the order passed by the Apex Court on 30/11/2015, the learned trial Court has directed to further investigate the matter on or before 16.12.2017. The petitioner also submitted an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking investigation of certain issue. After further investigation, the respondents have submitted a detail report along with the documents before the learned trial Court and it has also been held that no offence has been made out for submitting a charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC.
12. On perusal of final report(Annexure-R/2), I am of the view that each every issue has been dealt with by the Investigating Agency and it does not reflect any need for submitting supplementary charge-sheet, because the respondents have not found any material evidence or document which made out the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the private respondents. The medical query report itself shows that injury found on dead body due to crash by heavy metal. Such injury can be resulted due to train accident.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, said that in exceptional circumstances, the Court can transfer the matter to the C.B.I. or any other independent agency.
14. From the material evidence on record, in the present case no such circumstances are available for transferring the matter for investigation to the C.B.I. 9 W.P. No.1016/2016 (Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.)
15. As per Paras - 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit of Shri Vivek Singh Chouhan, City Police Superintendent, Ratlam, wherein he very categorically stated that from the call details of Varsha Verma, wife of deceased Manish Verma, no material has been found and prima facie came to the conclusion that it is a case of murder. The text messages of all four mobile phones have been sent to the FSL,Hyderabad and as per its report, nothing is available to register an offence under Section 302 of IPC against the private respondents.
16. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra- ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
17. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr.31, the 9 W.P. No.1016/2016 (Mohanlal Verma v. State of M.P. & Ors.) Apex Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency.
18. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances so also the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, as the order passed by the writ court has been upheld by the Apex Court with some modification, therefore, in the subsequent writ petition, no direction for investigation by the C.B.I.,as prayed is made out.
19. The order passed in the first writ petition has attained finality. The present writ petition has been filed after disposal of first writ petition. The petitioner is precluded from filing second writ petition on the same facts and circumstances and prayer for C.B.I. Inquiry is misconceived. This prayer was available to him in the first round of litigation also, but he had not prayed the aforesaid relief in the earlier writ petition. Now, when the said order has attained finality, no such relief can be granted in the subsequent writ petition.
20. For these reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge pn Preetha Nair 2018.03.16 11:07:42 +05'30'