Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rubabuddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2016
WP-3672-2015
(RUBABUDDIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
27-01-2016
Mr. A.Surana, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Mittal, counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The grievance raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner had lodged a report and on that report a preliminary enquiry was done after registering the FIR, then no action was taken by the respondents thereafter. In the reply respondents have revealed that after the investigation, the closure report was prepared. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the matter has been re-opened and reinvestigation is being done in the matter. In view of this, no direction is required. However it is expressed that while reinvestigating the matter, the grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition in respect of no seizure of mobile of the accused will be duly considered by the investigating agency.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE