Rani Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2540 MP

                                                   1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                             BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
                            ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                            WRIT PETITION No. 18273 of 2017
                Between:-

                RANI CHATURVEDI W/O LATE SHRI JAI
                KUMAR CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 29
                YEARS, OCCUPATION-HOUSE WIFE, R/O
                GRAM SAKHI, P.S. BYOHARI, DISTRICT
                SHAHDOL (M.P.)

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                (BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

                AND

       1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                THROUGH    PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF HOME, MANTRALAYA,
                VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL
                (M.P.)

       2.       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                POLICE    HEADQUARTERS, DISTRICT
                BHOPAL (M.P.)

       3.       THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                ZONE SHAHDOL, DISTRICT - SHAHDOL
                (M.P.)

       4.       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.
                OFFICE, DISTRICT - SHAHDOL (M.P.)

       5.       THE TOWN INSPECTOR, POLICE STATION
                BYOHARI, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

                 (SHRI MANISH KHOLIA, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                 RESPONDENTS/STATE, AND SHRI K.B. VISHWAKARMA,
                 ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENER)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:

                                            ORDER

On 09.09.2017, the husband of the petitioner namely Jai Kumar was

found dead. On 13.09.2017, family of the petitioner made a written

complaint to Superintendent of Police, Shahdol, to do the investigation and

take appropriate action against the culprits. Thereafter, various other

representations were made and it was submitted that there was previous

enmity between family of the deceased with the proposed accused, therefore,

an apprehension was raised that the husband of the petitioner was killed by

the proposed accused. Since nothing has happened, therefore, the petitioner

has approached this Court with the prayer to direct the respondent authorities

to register the FIR and to conduct time bound court monitored fair and

impartial investigation of brutal kidnapping and killing of the husband of the

petitioner.

2. On 25.01.2018 this court directed the State to look into the grievance

of the petitioner and to see whether any evidence is available so as to find

out the real culprit.

3. The State Government on 05.02.2018 filed additional return

submitting copy of the post-mortem report and statement of merg intimation

etc. and it was submitted that no cognizable offence has been found to have

been committed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while placing reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sodan Singh Vs.

New Delhi Municipal Committee and another 1, submits that when the

State fails to do the needful within reasonable time, it should be left to the

courts to protect the rights of the citizens and accordingly, interference is

sought for.

1 1989 (4) SCC 155

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and he

submits that initially the merg was registered at Police Station-Beohari,

District-Shahdol on 09.09.2017 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. on

information given by one Rakesh Dubey S/o Jignesh Dubey. According to

merg intimation, the deceased was suffering from 'Epilepsy' (Mirgi) and he

was missing from 07.09.2017 at about 7 p.m. and one Balraj Mishra told that

the deceased died due to drowning in a pond of village. The State counsel

further submits that since no cognizable offence was found to have been

committed, therefore, on 31.12.2017, a letter was submitted before the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Beohari for grant of permission to file merg diary and

final report. The relevant documents have been placed on record.

6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is not inclined to continue with the present proceedings.

However, a liberty is reserve to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse, in

accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed

off.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE pp.

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.02.26 14:13:46 +05'30'