[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Qasimuddin Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6468
1 WP-2016-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 22 nd OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2016 of 2026
QASIMUDDIN QURESHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Shukla - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking
the following reliefs-
"(i) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or
any other similar writ directing the Respondents to register a First Information
Report to investigate the suspected murder of the brother of the Petitioner.
(ii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or
any other similar writ directing the Respondents to lodge a FIR and conduct a
Postmortem, file the Inquest and Magisterial report as per the provisions of
Section 196 and 197 of BNSS, and direct it to be placed the same before the
Police Authorities and this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or
any other similar writ directing the respondent authorities to constitute a High-
Level Investigation Team for conducting postmortem and proper investigation
of the death of the brother of the Petitioner.
(iv) Any other order or orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice dated 20.05.2015
was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Narsinghpur, stating that a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6468
2 WP-2016-2026
complaint had been lodged by the wife of the deceased against the petitioner and
calling upon him to give his statement. It is further submitted that the petitioner
made a representation dated 10.11.2025 before the Superintendent of Police,
Narsinghpur, seeking a fair investigation and post-mortem of the deceased, as the
death allegedly occurred under suspicious circumstances. However, no action was
taken by the authorities.
It is further contended that the discharge summary issued by Metro
Hospital, Jabalpur indicates an injury on the chest of the deceased, which has also
been alleged by the wife of the deceased. According to learned counsel, the wife
of the deceased has accused the petitioner of being responsible for the death of his
brother. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks a direction for conducting a second
post-mortem.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Madras in Santosh v. The District
Collector, Madurai (W.P. No. 12608/2020 decided on 02.12.2020) and Anju v.
The Home Secretary and Others (W.P. No. 13141/2024 decided on 17.05.2024) .
This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and has perused the record.
It is well settled that conducting a second post-mortem or ordering
exhumation of a dead body is an exceptional course, which can be permitted only
upon the existence of compelling, strong, and cogent reasons demonstrating grave
suspicion, procedural irregularity, or serious lapses in the initial post-mortem.
Such relief cannot be granted merely on conjectures, allegations, or at the instance
of a private party seeking to reopen settled facts.
In the present case, the deceased was buried on 27.03.2025. The petitioner
has not placed on record any material to show that the initial post-mortem, if
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6468
3 WP-2016-2026
conducted, suffered from procedural infirmity, mala fides, or was carried out in
violation of statutory norms. Mere reference to an injury noted in the hospital
discharge summary, without any medical opinion linking the same to homicidal
death or procedural illegality in post-mortem, does not constitute sufficient ground
to order a second post-mortem.
Further, the allegations made by the wife of the deceased are already subject
to investigation by the competent authorities. The petitioner, who himself is facing
allegations, cannot seek a second post-mortem as a matter of right, particularly
after the burial of the body, without demonstrating exceptional circumstances
warranting such an extraordinary direction.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on
facts and do not advance the case of the petitioner, as each case relating to
exhumation or second post-mortem depends upon its own peculiar facts and the
existence of compelling reasons, which are absent in the present case.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no case is made out for granting the relief sought by the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
