Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Lal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 30 October, 2013
1
W. P. No. 18983/2013
30.10.2013
Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Grievance raised by the petitioner vide this petition is
against harassment allegedly meted out to the petitioner by
respondent Nos. 7 to 10 because as per petitioner a complaint
is lodged by the petitioner and his wife against respondent Nos. 7 to 10 for the involvement in a murder case of petitioner's father Harilal Sahu who died in the intervening night 3/4.4.2013.
It is urged that the police instead of causing inquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner are harassing the petitioner and even a First Information Report has not been lodged by the respondent No. 6, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, district Sidhi.
Various allegations have been made by the petitioner in respect of the working of respondent No. 6 as Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali and a direction is accordingly sought to the respondents to prevent respondent No. 6 from further harassing the petitioner and to conduct investigation in the matter of death of Harilal Sahu, in accordance with law.
In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India various facets of death of petitioner's father cannot be gone into, nor an opinion can be formed merely on the basis of allegations made by the petitioner; however, the correctness of the allegation can very well be examined by the Superintendent of Police, District Sidhi.
2Therefore, the petitioner is set at liberty to represent the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi in respect of the grievance raised in this petition. Superintendent of Police on receiving such complaint will fairly examine the same and make all efforts to bring all culprits, whosoever they may be, to the books. It is made clear that this Court has not formulated any opinion nor expressed any opinion on the merit of the matter and the Superintendent of Police shall exercise his discretion and arrive at conclusion after objectively considering the entire facts.
Let a decision to that effect be taken expeditiously; however, not later than three months from the date of receiving the representation.
The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. C.c. as per rules.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vivek tripathi