IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Prabal Dogra - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior & State of M.P. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 10446 of 2017
Decided On : 30-11-2017
CRIMINAL - SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. - FREE AND FAIR INVESTIGATION - RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY THE COURT - INVESTIGATION IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE POLICE - COURT CANNOT SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION - COURT CAN INTERFERE ONLY WHEN THE INVESTIGATION IS BIASED OR MALA FIDE - COURT CANNOT DIRECT THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE FROM A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW - COURT CANNOT DIRECT THE POLICE TO GET THE INJURED MEDICALLY EXAMINED BY A MEDICAL BOARD.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, who was accused of firing a gun shot on the complainant, causing injury on the back side of the head of the complainant, filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the police to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the crime and also for a directing the S.H.O. of concerning Police Station/investigating officer to get the injured medically examined by the Medical Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the investigation is the prerogative of the police and the Court cannot supervise the investigation. The Court can interfere only when the investigation is biased or mala fide. The Court cannot direct the police to investigate the case from a particular point of view. The Court cannot direct the police to get the injured medically examined by a Medical Board.
Issues: Whether the Court can interfere with the investigation by issuing directions to the investigating officer?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the investigation is the prerogative of the police and the Court cannot supervise the investigation. The Court can interfere only when the investigation is biased or mala fide. The Court cannot direct the police to investigate the case from a particular point of view. The Court cannot direct the police to get the injured medically examined by a Medical Board.
Final Decision: The application filed by the applicant was dismissed.
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the police to conduct fair and impartial investigation in Crime No. 350/2017 registered by Police Station Kampoo, Gwalior as well as for a directing the S.H.O. of concerning Police Station/investigating officer to get the injured medically examined by the Medical Board. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that complainant Avneesh Sharma, lodged a police complaint on 31-7-2017 at Police Station Kampoo Distt. Gwalior, alleging therein that on 30-7-2017, at about 11:40 P.M., when he was returning back after leaving one Vikram Bhadauria, one swift car came there, and the applicant along with other co-accused persons alighted from the swift car and accusing that the complainant had killed the father of the applicant in the year 2008, the applicant, fired a gun shot on the complainant, causing injury on the back side of the head of the complainant. Another gunshot was fired, however, it missed. The co-accused Golu Parmar, fired another gunshot, but it also missed. Other co-accused persons were shouting that the complainant should not be spared. As Dheeru Bhargav and other persons came on the spot, and after noticing them, the accused persons, including the applicant went away. The police registered the F.I.R. in crime No. 350/2017 for offence under Section 307, 34 of I.P.C. The complainant was sent for medical examination.
2. The applicant made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and the Collector, Gwalior to conduct a free and fair investigation and to get the complainant medically examined by a Medical Board, but as no heed was paid, therefore, the present application has been filed seeking aforementioned directions. The prayer of the applicant in the present case is as under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and issuing direction to respondents to conduct the fair and impartial investigation into matter and also to issuing the direction to the concerning S.H.O., Police Station Kampoo, to conduct medical examination of injured Avneesh Sharma @ Raja by the Medical Board Distt. Gwalior in connection with crime No. 350/2017 registered at P.S. Kampoo, Dist. Gwalior for offence punishable under Section 307, 34 of I.P.C., in the interest of justice."
3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that free and fair investigation is the fundamental right of the accused, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the police to conduct the investigation from all necessary and possible angles. It is submitted that the complainant is an influential person being the leader of Congress Party and in connivance with the Doctors, a false M.L.C. has been got prepared to the effect that the complainant has suffered firearm injury, whereas in fact, no injury was sustained by the complainant. Thus, it was directed that the respondents may be directed to conduct the investigation in free and fair manner and further the complainant may be got medically examined by the Medical Board, Gwalior.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that it has been alleged by the applicant, that the complainant has got the forged M.L.C. report prepared in connivance with the Doctor, however, the Doctor has not been made a party to this application. When an allegation of mala fide is made against a person, then he should have been made a party to this petition, in order to answer the allegations and in absence of necessary party, the petition is bad and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the investigating officer, to prima facie show that the investigation in free and fair manner is not being done. The applicant by this application, merely seeks indulgence of this Court so that the c
State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karri (2006) 7 SCC 172
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181
V.K. Sasikala Vs. State reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771
Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 407
Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516
NHRC v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 767
Nahar Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 1 SCC 307
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167
Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N. (2000) 6 SCC 204
K. Anbazhagan v. Supdt. of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767
Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 666
Shatrughan Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 3 SCC 1
Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 12 SCC 529
Babubhai Vs. State of Giyarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254
S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari
S.M. Datta Vs. State of Gujarat
State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha
D. Venkatasubramaniam vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488
M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649
State of M.P. Vs. Sheetala Sahai and others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported (2005) 1 SCC 568
Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330
Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293
Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill 1995(6) SCC 194
State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan 1999(2) SCC 651
State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma 1996 (7) SCC 705
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1997 (2) SCC 397
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 1999 (8) SCC 728
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi State 1999 (3) SCC 259
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89
State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (2004) 1 SCC 691
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540
Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1
Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2010 6 SCC 1
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.