Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anjali Rathor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 19753 of 2021
Between:-
SMT. ANJALI RATHOR W/O SHRI DIGAMBAR RATHOR ,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O
NEAR GAYATRI MANDIR PANDAV NAGAR SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NITESH DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS ZONE SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
DISTT. SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S KOTWALI DISTT. SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, asking following relief:-
1. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents-
authorities to hand over the investigation of the FIR dated
13.8.2021 in connection with Crime No.661/2020 registered by
P.S.Kotwali District Shahdol to any other independent Agency
preferably to the CBI or SIT to initiate investigation and enquiry
afresh by taking penal action against the guilty respondents and file
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the challan/final report before the competent court of Special Judge
(NDPS, Act) Shahdol within a time bound frame, in the interest of
justice.
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.04.08 18:14:50 IST
2. To direct the respondents no.1 to 4 to take penal and
departmental action against respondent no.5 for misusing the power
and post, as he has indulged in falsely implicating and framing the
petitioner in the instant FIR dated 13/08/2021 in connect with
Crime No.661/2020 registered by P.S.Kotwali District Shahdol in
the interest of justice.
3. To direct respondent no.4-S.P.Shahdol to preserve and supply
the required CCTV footage of dt 13.08.2021 from 2 p.m.up to
14.8.21 till morning installed in P.S.Kotwali, Shahdol within a time
bound frame, in the interest of justice.
4. Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may
also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents no.5 has falsely roped the husband
of the petitioner in the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act vide Crime
No.661/2021 alleging that husband of the petitioner along with two other persons were
illegally carrying Ganja by his car i.e Scorpio bearing registration no. MP 65BB/1040. As per
the petitioner, her husband was arrested on 13/08/2021 at about 2:10 P.M. along with other
co-accused persons from bus stand, Shahdol and this fact can be ascertained from CCTV
camera installed in the shops situate there and also from police station Kotwali, Shahdol.
3. It is submitted that an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was filed before the
Special Judge, NDPS Act on behalf of husband of the petitioner to provide CCTV
footages, but the same was rejected, although a direction was given to the police-authorities
to preserve those CCTV footages.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in Paramveer Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and others, reported in
(2021)1 SCC 184, in which the Supreme Court has advised the State Government and the
Central Government for installing CCTV cameras. The petitioner has also requested that a
separate enquiry be conducted by an independent agency, so as to bring correct facts
before the Court.
5. The respondents have filed reply stating therein that husband of the petitioner is a
habitual criminal and 10 criminal cases have been registered and pending against him. It is
further stated that in a case registered in Crime No.125/2005 he has punished with rigorous
Signature Not Verified
SAN
imprisonment for 10 years and recently he has been released on bail. It is also disclosed in
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.04.08 18:14:50 IST
the reply that coverage of CCTV footages stored in the disk remains for 15 days and
thereafter, the data is automatically deleted from the disk. They have denied the fact about
false implication of husband of the petitioner and submits that challan has also been filed.
6. Counsel for respondents submits that application filed on behalf of husband of the
petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C has already been dismissed by the trial court with the
direction to the police-authorities to preserve the CCTV footages. Under these
circumstances, no separate enquiry is required.
7. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record. There is nothing available on
record to substantiate that the husband of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in any
manner.
8. The judgment passed in Paramvir Singh Saini(supra) does not help in any way to the
petitioner as there is no material available on record to show whether the instructions or
advise given in the aforesaid case has been implemented or not by the State Government or
the Central Government.
9. Considering the rival contentions made by counsel for parties and the facts that the
application moved by the accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for preserving CCTV
footages has already been rejected by the trial court, challan has been filed and husband of
the petitioner has criminal antecedents, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain
the petition and hand over the enquiry and investigation to independent agency.
10. Accordingly the petition being devoid any substance deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.04.08 18:14:50 IST
