Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijeta Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2730 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJETA SINGH LODHI W/O RAJVENDRA @ CHHOTU
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOURAI, POST
BALAKOAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.S. THAKUR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTAMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, DAMOH DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs :
i. Requisition the concerning relevant record for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 2/10/2023 12:32:20 PM 2
ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to look into complaint dated 18.11.2022 submitted by the petitioner's family and further conduct and inquiry with regard to mobile tower location of the petitioner's husband namely Chotu @ Rajvendra Singh, one Mukesh Jain and police officers namely S.I. Ramakant Mishra, Constable Suryakant Pandey, Ashif Khan, Mukesh Dubey, SHO Vikas Chouhan, Constable Shri Ram, Constable Aniket and their call details of entire day dated 21.08.2022.
iii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry of the petitioner's husband case by an Special Investigation Agency or by Special Task Force. iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in the present case, a Criminal Case under Sections 376, 376-D, 307, 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act has been registered against the husband of the present petitioner.
It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and as the petitioner was not even present at the time of incident, therefore, they moved representations before the various authorities which are contained in Annexure P/2 and requested that a fair investigation while taking into consideration the CCTV footage be conducted. It is contended by counsel that in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra Singh Narvariya Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2017 (2) MPWN SN 91 the respondents are duty bound to take into consideration the information which has been provided by the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 and, thereafter to conduct the investigation in accordance with law.
The counsel has further placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in various cases which have also been brought on record.
Per contra, Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for respondent submits that in the present case, the petitioner has not filed copy of FIR. The investigation is Signature Not Verified already being carried out by the prosecution agency therefore, the filing of this Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 2/10/2023 12:32:20 PM 3 petition at this stage is premature.
It is also contended by the counsel for State that the petitioner husband is still absconding and therefore, any direction at this stage, will have bearing on the investigation which is being carried out by the prosecution. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner arrest is also necessary for a just and proper investigation and thus, while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in WP No.7744/2022 (Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of M.P.) submits that no interference is required.
Heard the rival submissions.
I n the present case, the petitioner's husband is undisputedly being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner has not been arrested as yet. The matter is already being investigated by the prosecution. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit, the petitioner is extended liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police, Damoh with an application afresh and the Superintendent of Police then take necessary measures to ensure just and fair investigation in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Jitendra Singh Narvariya Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2017 (2) MPWN SN 91.
I t is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the Superintendent of Police, Damoh in his own wisdom shall be at liberty to deal with the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
This order shall not be construed as an order containing any direction to accept the petitioner application.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 2/10/2023 12:32:20 PM 4(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Shub Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 2/10/2023 12:32:20 PM