Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haneef Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 566
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 18522 of 2016
Haneef Khan
Parties Name: Vs.
The State of M.P. and others
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of Advocates for parties For petitioner:- Shri Pushpendra Kumar
Dubey, learned counsel.
For respondents/State: Shri R.K.
Patidar, learned Panel Lawyer.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (O R D E R) 01/05/2020 Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction of this Court to respondents to do fair investigation and enquiry by some senior officer of police or any other reliable agency into offence registered against the petitioner at the instance of Rajkishore Patel @ Raju.
2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that at the instance of Rajkishore Patel @ Raju Crime No.129/2016 under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act has been registered against the petitioner. A disclosure statement has been made by accused Rajkishore Patel that he went to bring Ganja at the instance of petitioner. He provided him with vehicle and asked registration papers and told him to meet a person in Orissa and bring Ganja bag. For each such trip he will pay him Rs.10,000/-. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner Haneef was married to Mangla Patel whose religion was later on changed and she was Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 01/05/2020 14:28:23 2 named as Kaneej Fatima. She is a political person and very resourceful and powerful. After about 20 years of marriage differences has creeped in between Haneef and Mangla Patel. Haneef has also married a second woman. Mangla Patel @ Kaneez Fatima has lodged FIR against the petitioner under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that Rajkishore Patel, the main accused in the case is brother of Mangla Patel and at her instance complainant has taken name of petitioner and framed in the case.
3. On the basis of aforesaid facts he has made a prayer that police authorities may be directed to conduct a fair investigation or to get the crime investigated by some senior officer or any independent agency. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that under Article 21 victim/accused has a right to fair investigation by impartial agency under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Respondents have filed their reply and they have stated that the investigation has been done fairly and there is no bias or prejudice against the petitioner. It is further stated that only because Rajkishore Patel is brother of first wife of petitioner namely Kaneej Fatima, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated in case due to marital disharmony. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Considered the arguments of petitioner's counsel as well as respondents' concerned and perused the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties.
6. On going through the pleadings made by the petitioner it is clear that he is unable to point out any illegality or biased in investigation done by police against him. It is established law that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India State has a duty to do fair and impartial investigation against any person accused in commission of cognizable Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 01/05/2020 14:28:23 3 offence. Interferences by High Court is to sparingly done in exceptional circumstances only when it becomes necessary to provide credibility and to still confidence in investigation or where incident have national or international ramifications and such order is necessary for doing complete justice or to enforce fundamental rights. In the present case petitioner is unable to dent the prosecution investigation by leading any evidence to show that investigation done by the agency is partial, bias, prejudiced against the petitioner.
7. Petitioner is unable to show by his pleadings and documents that investigation is dented or done partially by investigating agency, in absence of such evidence and pleadings, this Court cannot pass any order to do re-investigation in the matter or direct some independent agency to do re-investigation or to do investigation by higher officer of the police an apprehension of petitioner that he is being framed by him ex-wife through his brother and police authorities.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(Vishal Dhagat) Judge sp/-
Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 01/05/2020 14:28:23