IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Dr. P.S. Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 439 of 2015
Decided On : 12-07-2016
Special Public Prosecutor - Appointment Challenge - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 24(8) - Section 82 - Section 83 - Section 438 - Section 302 - Section 34 - Section 24(8) - Section 82 - Section 83 - Section 438 - Section 302 - Section 34
Fact of the Case:
An FIR led to the registration of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against two individuals. The accused absconded, leading to steps under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and directed to join the investigation. The petitioner remained absconded until surrendering after obtaining anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The State Government's appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor was challenged on various grounds, including lack of reasons for appointment, potential prejudice due to the complainant's choice, and lack of exceptional circumstances for the appointment. The court considered the submissions and found that the State Government had objectively considered the report furnished by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police before appointing the Special Public Prosecutor.
Issues: Challenge to the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, potential prejudice, and lack of exceptional circumstances for the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the State Government objectively exercising discretion in appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, considering the nature of the case and the report furnished by relevant authorities.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
An FIR dated 13.2.2013 at 23:30 hours at Police Station City Kotwali Sagar by Rammilan Dubey, Head Constable 901 on behalf of Anoop Kumar, son of Rajababu Dubey, led to registration of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Dr. P.S. Thakur and one Martand Singh Thakur.
2. The commission of crime reported was due to death of one Abhishek Dubey. Material on record reveals that both the accused absconded which led the police to take steps under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') whereon order was passed on 18.5.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sagar. Later, by an order-dated 12.11.2013 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.13433/2013 on an application under Section 438 of the Code, the petitioner was granted benefit of anticipatory bail and was directed to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigation. The arrest memo on record reveals that the petitioner remained absconded from 13.2.2013 to 27.11.2013.
3. The FIR borne out from the complaint which led to registration of an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC reads thus –
^eSa iqfyl pkSdh fryh vLirky Fkkuk xksikyxat lkxj esa izvkj0 ds in ij inLFk gwa] vkt fnukad 13-02-2013 djhc 23-00 cts Fkkuk dksrokyh ds l0m0fu0 ,l0lh0 JhokLro us eq>s ,d nsgkrh ukylh /kkjk 302, 34, vkbZ-ih-lh- ds vly uEcj ij dk;eh gsrq nh gS tks is'k djrk gwa dk;eh dh tk;s nsgkrh ukylh udy tsy gS& nsgkrh ukylh Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk lkxj vi0dz0 0@13 /kkjk 302, 34, vkbZ-ih-lh- ?kVuk fnukad le; 13-02-2013 ds 20%30 cts] ?kVuk LFky gksVy jke ljkst iSys'k ifjlj frydxat lkxj fnukad le; fjiksVZ 13-02-2013 ds 23%30 cts uke Qfj;knh vuwi dqekj nqcs iq= jkt ckcw nqcs mez 35 tokgjxat ijdksVk lkxj uke e`rd vfHk"ksd nqcs iq= jkt ckcw nqcs mez 30 lky tokgjxat ijdksVk lkxj uke vkjksih 1 MkWDVj ih0,l0 Bkdqj 2- ekrZ.M flag Bkdqj dk;ehdrkZ ,l0lh0 JhokLro Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk lkxj] fooj.k eSa Bsdknkjh o d`f"k dk dk;Z djrk gwa] eSa vkSj esjs lkFk esa lqjsUnz pkScs] c`ts'k nqcs] fouksn xq:] /kesUnz xq: ,oa esjs pkpk dk yM+dk ';ke th nqcs vuh'k jkor dh ckjkr esa gksVy jke ljkst iSys'k frydxat x;s Fks] ogka ij MkWDVj ih0,l0 Bkdqj ,oa ekrZ.M flag Bkdqj ekmtj fy, Fks xkuk py jgk Fkk eqUuh cnuke gqbZ] ml ij ih0,l0 Bkdqj tks ekmtj ysdj MkUl dj jgs Fks MkUl ij ls vfHk"ksd nqcs vkSj ih0,l0 Bkdqj MkWDVj dh >wek >Vdh gksus yxh] rHkh ekrZ.M flag us dgk fd cgqr mMrk gS] ekjks lkys dks brus esa ih0,l0 Bkdqj us xksyh pykbZ tks lh/ks vfHk"ksd nqcs ds lhus esa yxh ml le; jkts'oj lsu] c`ts'k nqcs] nhid nqcs] ';ke th nqcs] jkts'k jtd] vkuUn nqcs vkfn yksx Fks ftUgksus lEiw.kZ ?kVuk ns[kh gSA ekSds ij vfHk"ksd nqcs xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x;k] rks mls fouksn xq:] yky Vosjk ls ';ke th nqcs] jkts'oj lsu xkM+h esa Mkydj ftyk vLirky lkxj yk;sA MkWDVj ih0,l0 Bkdqj ogka ls Hkkx x;kA ge yksxksa us vfHk"ksd nqcs dks vLirky yk;k HkrhZ djk;k] MkWDVj }kjk fryh vLirky esa psd dj crk;k fd bldh e`R;q gks xbZ gSA bl ?kVuk esa ih0,l0 Bkdqj }kjk ?kVuk le; tku cw>dj vfHk"ksd nqcs dks xksyh ekjh gS] ftlls vfHk"ksd nqcs dh e`R;q gqbZ gS] fjiksVZ djrk gwa] dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA gLrk{kj viBuh; vuwi dqekj nqcs 13-02-2013 gLrk{kj viBuh; ,l0lh0 JhokLro 13&02&2013*
4. That, before committal of the proceedings to the Court of Session, i.e. during pendency of the matter before Judicial Magistrate First Class, the complainant filed an application on 2.2.2014 addressed to the District Magistrate, Sagar requesting for appointment of one Satish Chandra Rawat as Special Public Prosecutor by invoking powers under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code. The applicant also proposed to bear the expenses of the Special Public Prosecutor.
5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the said application by the complainant was endorsed by the Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development, Social Justice, specially abled welfare, co-operation, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and though a feeble submissions were made that a political interference has been sought;
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajendra Nigam v. State of M.P.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.