IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
RAMLAKHAN and another – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. and others – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 7219 of 2017
Decided On : 23-07-2019
JUDGMENT :
1. This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the complainants/victims for transfer of investigation of Crime Nos. 3/2015 and 22/2015 registered at Police Station Dabra Dehat and Crime No. 186/2015 registered at Police Station Bilaua, Distt. Gwalior to CBI.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that during the pendency of this application, the police has filed the closure report in all the three cases which are pending consideration before the Court of J.M.F.C., Dabra, Distt. Gwalior and C.J.M. Gwalior. This Court by order dated 5-7-2019 had stayed the further proceedings.
3. Before considering the facts and submissions of the parties, it would be necessary to consider the history of the case, which had resulted in the present petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
4. M.Cr.C. No. 1473 of 2016 under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the applicant No. 1/Ramlakhan for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to investigate the Crime No. 186/2015 registered at Police Station Bilaua, Distt. Gwalior by himself. The following relief was claimed :
5. Notices were issued in the said petition on 10-3-2016 and the State Counsel was directed to file the status report, however, on 10-8-2016, 30-8-2016, 7-9-2016, 23-9-2016, 27-9-2016 and 7-10-2016, the case was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for the State and neither the status report, nor the case diary was produced. On 24-10-2016, a statement was made by the Counsel for the State that the case diary is not traceable and case diary is being reconstructed and accordingly, the following order was passed :
“Shri Brijesh Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri R. D. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The counsel for the State submitted that he has received a letter dated 19-10-2016 from the office of SHO, Police Station Bilauva, District Gwalior to the effect that the case diary of Crime No. 186/2015 is not traceable and the carbon diary is being prepared and the documents are being reconstructed. The counsel for the State is directed to file the letter dated 19-10-2016 within three days. Under these circumstance, the counsel for the respondent is directed to submit the progress report of the reconstruction of the case diary and also with regard to the departmental action which is proposed to be taken against the erring official. The counsel for the respondent prays for two weeks' time to submit the compliance report. List this case on 9-11-2016. It is made clear that if the compliance report is not filed on or before 9-11-2016, this Court may require the personal appearance of the SHO Police Station Bilauva, District Gwalior. Copy of this order be made available to the counsel for the State for necessary compliance.”
6. On 9-11-2016, a statement was made that except X-ray report, which is to be received from J. A. Hospital, Gwalior, all the relevant documents of the case diary have been reconstructed and accordingly, the following order was passed :
“Shri Arun Pateriya, counsel for the applicant. Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, learned P. P. for the respondent/State. In compliance of the order dated 24-10-2016, compliance report has been filed today. A copy of the same was made available by the learned counsel for the State for perusal of this Court. As per compliance report, except X-ray report which is to be received from J. A. Hospital, Gwalior, all the relevant documents of the case diary have been reconstructed. Since the sincere efforts are being made by the police for reconstructing the case diary, further time of 15 days is granted to the State to produce the complete case diary for hearing of this matter on merits. List this matter immediately after 15 days.”
7. On 25-11-2016, this Court after observing the casual approach of the police, directed for personal appearance of S.H.O., Police Station Bilaua, Distt. Gwalior as nothing was being done and accordingly, the following ord
State of Punjab vs. CBI reported in (2011) 9 SCC 182
Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160
Pooja Pal vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135
Neelam Mishra vs. Union of India
Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India
gpt-4
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.