Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrapal Singh vs Home Department on 11 August, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13477 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRAPAL SINGH S/O SHRI BUDDHSEN JI, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED SATYAPURI,
(GANGADHAM), OPPOSITE SBI, GALI NO.2, HOUSE NO.3,
NARORA (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PIYUSH SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. HOME DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE (EAST) INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. INSPECTOR P..S LASUDIA PS LASUDIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a direction for fair and proper investigation in the matter by independent agency.
The petitioner is father of deceased Laxmi. She was living in relationship with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11-08-2023
18:40:30
accused Rohit Saran.
2. As per the prosecution case, she committed suicide on 05.08.2020 by
hanging and the FIR was registered for commission of offence under Section
306 of the IPC. In the statement of the parents, they have made specific
allegation that the accused used to demand the money and assault the deceased.
It is submitted that it is not a case of suicide, but it is a case of homicidal and
she has been murdered. After the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed
for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the police has not properly
investigated the matter and in a hurried manner, the FIR was registered within 2
days without proper investigation. They made a complaint to the Police
Commissioner alleging that his daughter has died in suspicious circumstances
and, therefore, proper investigation should be made. It is further submitted that
the deceased was belonging to S.T. category and this aspect was also not
considered by the investigating agency. They suspected that the daughter was
murdered. In the postmortem report, the injuries have been found on the person
of the deceased and the following opinion was given:-
OPINION :-
- Death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem
hanging.
- Evidence of blunt force trauma present over check region of
face & forehead region.
- Duration of death could not be ascertained as body was kept
in A.C. chamber.
NOTE :-
This computer typed report contains page no. 3, 4, 5 & 6 total
pages 04 (Four), enclosed along with original post mortem
requisition form.
4. Despite the said opinion in the postmortem report, upon perusal of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11-08-2023
18:40:30
case diary, there is no material that the police has ascertained the death of the
deceased that whether it was suicidal or homicidal. The charge has also been
framed under Section 306 of IPC without considering the postmortem report.
5. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer on the ground that the
charge has already been framed and the trial is at the stage of evidence.
6. Counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court has power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing further investigation in the
matter considering the facts of the case. In support of his submission, he
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC
347. The said judgment was further followed by the Apex Court in the case of
Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346. In the aforesaid
cases, it has been held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for not
directing for further investigation in the light of the facts of a case.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The law in relation to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to direct for fair and proper investigation is no longer
res integra. This Court is possessed with power to direct for further
investigation considering the facts of the case. In the present case, considering
the postmortem report and the material, I am of the view that prima facie proper
investigation has not been conducted by the respondents. However, instead of
directing for further investigation because the charges have already been framed,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner should file an application under
Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the
Code) for alteration of the charge before the trial Court and the trial Court shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11-08-2023
18:40:30
consider the said application in accordance with the law taking into
consideration the entire material produced by the investigating agency and by
the petitioner. The provisions of Section 216 of the Code in Chapter XXVII
clearly stipulates that the Court may alter or to act any charge at any time before
the judgment is pronounced.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the
petitioner to file an application under Section 216 of the Code along with the
relevant record for alteration or addition of the charge before the trial Court and
the trial Court shall consider the said application taking into consideration the
entire material before it irrespective of the stage of the trial.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11-08-2023
18:40:30
