Smt Priyanka Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15894 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Priyanka Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                             ON THE 28th OF MAY, 2024

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11309 of 2024

       BETWEEN:-

       SMT. PRIYANKA RATHORE W/O MANISH
       RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION
       -HOUSEWIFE R/O BEHIND KALARI NEAR B. J. S.
       COLLEGE KALA SAYEED TARAGANJ DISTRICT
       GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                    .....PETITIONER
       (BY SHRI KUSHAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN,
       BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.     STATE OF M.P. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
       CITY CENTER GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.     STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S JANAKGANJ
       LASHKAR   DISTRICT   GWALIOR   (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI M.S. JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                       ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"That, humbler petitioner prays before this Hon'ble

Court the instant petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and respondents may kindly be directed that in future, if they need Petitioners husband or Petitioner for enquiry in any crime first they should send him a notice and if they have to search the house, they should send him a search warrant and follow the provision of Law."

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on 13-04-2024 when she along with her children was at home, in the midnight at about 12:35 am some police personnel came to her house, started knocking the doors and hurling filthy abuses. They asked about her husband who was not present in the house. Since her husband was not at house, therefore, all the police personnel who stated themselves to be posted at Janakganj Police Station returned back with the threatening that if her husband does not mark his attendance at the Police Station, then they will face the dire consequences. It is further submitted that despite making complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, no heed has been paid, therefore, the present petition is preferred before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of this petition. It is further submitted that husband of petitioner is a habitual offender and if petitioner has any grievance then she may avail the remedy of filing of private complaint before the competent Court against the erring persons.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

appended thereto.

5. This is a case where the petitioner who happens to be wife of allegedly habitual offender is aggrieved by the action of police party whereby the police personnel asked the petitioner and her family members to give whereabouts of her husband. On close scrutiny, it appears that the police was performing its duty because police officers had the tip off about alleged conduct of husband of petitioner. Therefore, they tried to enquire about his whereabouts. It is the duty of the police officers to do so. However, it is also expected that police officers have to behave in proper manner.

6. Petitioner did not disclose any specific term about misbehaviour.

In absence of any such fact, it is apposite that petitioner, if aggrieved, may present her case by way of filing complaint, if advised so. Law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016) 6 SCC 277 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338 indicates so.

7. In the cumulative analysis, this Court does not find any case for interference specifically after going through the detail reply filed by the respondents. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.

                                                     (ANAND PATHAK)
Anil*                                                    JUDGE
             ANIL KUMAR
             CHAURASIYA
             2024.05.30
             10:51:37
             +05'30'