R.P. Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13498 MP

                                                          1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 18 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 6352 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           R.P. TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI SAMBHU PRASAD TIWARI,
                           AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS
                           CONTRACTUAL SUB ENGINEER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT,
                           GOHAPARU, MADHYA PRADESH.

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RAHUL MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                 SECRETARY,      HOME    DEPARTMENT,
                                 MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL,
                                 MADHYA PRADESH.

                           2.    SUPERINTENDENT   OF    POLICE, POLICE
                                 HEADQUARTERS, DISTT. SHAHDOL, MADHYA
                                 PRADESH.

                           3.    S.H.O. GOHPARU, DISTT.       SHAHDOL, MADHYA
                                 PRADESH.

                           4.    CHIEF   EXECUTIVE   OFFICER,          JANPAD
                                 PANCHAYAT,   GOHPARU, DISTT.        SHAHDOL,
                                 MADHYA PRADESH.

                           5.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT,
                                 DISTT. SHAHDOL, MADHYA PRADESH.

                           6.    SANTOSH CHATURVEDI S/O SHANKAR LAL
                                 C H AT U R V E D I , SARSI GOHPARU, DISTT.
                                 SHAHDOL, MADHYA PRADESH.

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 18-08-2023
18:18:02
                                                                 2
                                 This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

Petitioner's contention is that he is aggrieved of the FIR registered in Case Crime No.0418/2019 at Police Station - Gohparu, District Shahdol for offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC. His contention is that petitioner is working as Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Gohparu. A stranger who is not even a resident of Gohparu has filed the FIR. FIR has been registered without informing the superior Officers of the petitioner.

2. Attention is drawn to Annexure P-4 wherein responsibilities of the

Sub-Engineer are mentioned and it is submitted that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Engineer to sanction payment to any of the vendors. Therefore, allegation that payments have been made to certain persons who were not having valid GST registration, will not come within the purview of the dos and donts for a Sub-Engineer and therefore, FIR at least, against the petitioner be quashed. The petitioner places reliance on Annexure P-5 and submits that entry in Bill Vouchers is not within the domain of the Sub- Engineer.

3. Shri Subodh Kathar submits that matter is under investigation. Petitioner is already on anticipatory bail.

4. As per the law laid down by Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported 2021 SCC Online 315, investigation cannot be scuttled. In para 80 of the said judgment, it is clearly held that police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contained in Chapter XIV of the Court to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is further held that Courts would not Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 18-08-2023 18:18:02

quart any investigation into the cognizable offence. In view of such facts, when the petition is tested, then there is no substance in the pleadings. It is for the investigation officer to investigate the matter and to furnish the final report either showing the innocence or culpability of the petitioner, as the case may be.

5. Thus, at this stage, quarting the investigation by directing the authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in fact amounts to handing over the relief of anticipatory bail from a backdoor. However, in the present case, it is brought by learned counsel for the State on record that petitioner is already on anticipatory bail. Therefore, no direction can be issued to not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. He has to appear and co-operate with the investigating officer so that investigation may be completed in time and final report may be furnished.

6. Thus, on aforesaid grounds, this petition is devoid of merit. Therefore, it is dismissed as not maintainable.

7. It is made clear that none of the observations made herein shall be used against the petitioner while carrying out the investigation.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE veni

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 18-08-2023 18:18:02