Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs Vimla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
1 WP No. 28381/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
WP No.28381/2019
(Mrs Vimla Soni W/o late Shri Jagjivan and others Vs. The State
of M.P and others)
INDORE dt. 08-01-2020
Mr Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr R.S. Chhabra, learned Additional Advocate General
counsel for the respondent State on advance notice.
The petitioners before this court have filed this present petition stating that the petitioner No.1 is mother of one Jitendra Soni. The petitioner No.2 is wife of one Jitendra Soni and the petitioner No.3 is also a relative. It has been stated by the petitioners that the son of the petitioner No.1 Jitendra Soni, who is an honest Journalist has handed over a hard disk containing 64 GB data relating to "Honey Trap Scandal" to this court and on account of the aforesaid act Jitendra Soni is being harassed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and as many as forty five FIRs (First Information Report) have been registered against the family. It has been stated that the respondents State has registered about forty five FIRs, has demolished the house of the Jitendra Soni. Various other buildings belonging to Jitendra Soni have been demolished and as the State is proceeding ahead against Jitendra Soni and his family, the family should be provided protection by deploying para military forces such as CRPF, ITBP/CISF. Further prayer has been made for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, not to register any criminal case against the petitioners or their family members.
2 WP No. 28381/2019The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-
"a) To provide protection to the petitioners and their family members by deployment of members of Central Paramilitary Forces such as CRPF/ITCP/CISF;
b) To transfer all the investigations of around 40 cases registered against the family members of the petitioners from 01-12-2019 till date to an SIT monitored by this Hon'bel Court;
To direct the respondent (State of MP.) to not take any coercive steps or measure against the petitioners and their family members in around 40 cases registered against them from 01-12-2019 till date;
d) To direct respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh) to not register any fresh case or proceeding against the petitioners and their family members and Shri Mahendra Soni or their companies without the leave of this Hon'ble Court.
e) Any other or further reliefs that this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Learned Additional Advocate General on advance notice has argued before this court that in a Public Interest Litigation i.e WP No. 20136/2019 (Digvijay Singh Bhandari Vs. Sate of M.P. and others) a hard disk has been brought on record by the petitioner therein and merely because it is alleged that the same was supplied by Jitendra Soni as stated in the present writ petition it does not mean that Mr Jitendra Soni is being victimized. It has got no nexus with the crimes committed by Jitendra Soni. He has further argued that so far a registration of FIRs is concerned they are all relating to the criminal cases for committing heinous offences and the Cr.P.C (Code of Criminal Procedure) provides for a complete mechanism in case a F.I.R is registered against any individual. He has also informed this court that the son of the petitioner No.1 is absconding and a reward of Rs. One lac has been declared and till date the police 3 WP No. 28381/2019 has not been able to arrest him as he is still absconding. It has also been stated that the illegal structures which were contrary to the sanctioned layouts, constructed without sanctioned layout or constructed over the Government land have been demolished, after following the due process of law and the petitioners shall certainly be free to take recourse of remedy available under the law in case they are aggrieved by the demolition of the structures. It is also been stated that the question of deploying Paramilitary forces for protection of the family does not arise. However, the State shall be taking all proper steps for protection of the family in case any family member approaches them for such protection. He has also argued that Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for a pre-hearing in the matter of registration of FIR and no such blanket order can be passed restraining the State of Madhya Pradesh from registering any fresh case even though crime has been committed by Jitendra Soni or Mahendra Soni or any other member of the family. He has prayed for summary dismissal of the present writ petition.
This court has carefully gone through the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Petitioners as stated in the writ petition are being victimized on account of the fact that the son of the petitioner No.1, namely Jitendra Soni has handed over a hard disk relating to a crime registered by Indore Police (Honey Trap) Case. So far as criminal cases are concerned relating to "Honey Trap" there is already a Public Interest Litigation i.e WP No. 20136/2019 (Digvijay Singh Bhandari Vs. Sate of M.P. and others) and the State of Madhya Pradesh has constituted SIT 4 WP No. 28381/2019 for investigation of the matter. Even this court is monitoring the investigation and the progress of the case and various interim orders have been passed from time to time. It is true that a Hard Disk was brought on record by the petitioner therein, namely Mr Digvijay Singh Bhandari, but the fact is that the hard disk which was received in sealed cover was immediately forwarded to the Regional Forensic Lab, Hyderabad. State Government is not in possession of the hard disk.
So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is true that a large number of cases have been registered against Mr Jitendra Soni and other persons. However, there are separate FIRs and there is a complete mechanism provided for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely because there are large number of cases it does not mean that SIT should be constituted as prayed for. Prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the State Government not to register any case against the petitioners or family members without leave of this court. Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for such a procedure. There is no such concept of like grant of anticipatory bail so far as registration of F.I.R is concerned. Once the first information report is lodged, the person aggrieved does have a remedy as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecuting agency is certainly competent to investigate the matter keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as grant of protection by CRPF, CISF or ITBP is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General has already assured this court that in case there is any threat of life or any other kind of threat and 5 WP No. 28381/2019 an application is received, the State Government shall be taking action in accordance with law as it is the duty of the State to ensure that its Citizens live in a peaceful atmosphere in the State, without any threat of any kind.
Much has been argued by Mr Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel for the petitioners for restraining the State from taking coercive action against the petitioners and against family members. The State Government is certainly free to take all such steps which are permissible under the law in case a person is absconding and therefore the State Government shall be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law keeping in view the statutory provisions governing the field. The grievance of the petitioners in respect of demolition of certain structures of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners shall certainly be at a liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the law.
With the aforesaid, admission is declined.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE Rashmi Digitally signed by Rashmi Prashant Date: 2020.01.13 15:13:52 +05'30'