Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 94
S.K. Gangele, J.
Jaivir Singh Bhadoriya v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.3469 of 2007 (Gwalior); Decided on 27.1.2010.
Praveen Mishra for petitioner;
Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents;
Y.K. Saxena with Sarvesh Singh Chouhan for respondent No.4.
Headnote:(1) Police Regulations (M.P.) -- Reg.16 -- Criminal PC., 1973 -Ss.169 and 170 -- investigation conducted by CID not proper -- handing over of case to CID was itself against regulation 16 -- investigation not relied on.
The investigation conducted by the CID is not proper. Apart from this, the handing over of investigation to the CID as per order, Annexure R-1, was contrary to the Police Regulation No.16 and it appears that the investigation was handed over to CID in order to save certain persons. [Para 12
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.169 and 170 -- investigation done by CID quashed -- police directed to investigate.
The handing over of investigation to CID vide order, Annexure R -1 and further investigation conducted by CID arc hereby quashed. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are hereby directed to complete the investigation of the offence under supervision of an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. It is further directed that the investigation be conducted on the basis of the enquiry which may be done by the investigating authority, however, the material and the findings of the CID investigation be ignored by the investigating agency. (2001)6 SCC 181 and AIR 2008 SC 1614 followed. [Para 14
¼1½ iqfyl fofu;e ¼e-Á-½ && fofu-16 && naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 169 rFkk 170 && lh vkb Mh }kjk fd;k x;k vUos"k.k mfpr ugha && lh vkb Mh dks ekeyk lkSaiuk Lo;eso fofu;e 16 ds fo:) Fkk && vUos"k.k dk voyac ugha fy;k x;kA
lh vkb Mh }kjk fd;k x;k vUos"k.k mfpr ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr] vkns‘k] mikca/k vkj&1 ds vuqlkj lh vkb Mh dks vUos"k.k lkSaiuk iqfyl fofu;e dz-16 ds izfrdwy Fkk rFkk ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd dqN O;fDr;ksa dks cpkus ds fy, vUos"k.k lh vkb Mh dks lkSaik x;kA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 169 rFkk 170 && lh vkb Mh }kjk fd;k x;k vUos"k.k vfHk[kafMr && iqfyl dks vUos"k.k djus dk funsZ‘kA
vkns‘k] mikca/k vkj&1 }kjk lh vkb Mh dks vUos"k.k lkSaiuk rFkk lh vkb Mh }kjk fd;k tkus okyk vkxs dk vUos"k.k ,rn~}kjk vfHk[kafMr fd;k tkrk gSA izR;FkhZx.k dz-1] 2 rFkk 4 dks ,rn~}kjk vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ds jSad ds vf/kdkjh ds i;Zos{k.k ds v/khu vUos"k.k iw.kZ djus dk funsZ‘k fn;k tkrk gS fd vUos"k.k ml tk¡p ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk, tks vUos"k.k izkf/kdj.k }kjk dh tk ldrh gS] rFkkfi lh vkb Mh vUos"k.k dh lkexzh rFkk fudkksZa ij vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k }kjk /;ku ugha fn;k tk,A ¼2001½6 ,l lh lh 181 rFkk , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 1614 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14
1. Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of CID inquiry and also sought further direction to complete the investigation pending on the basis of a report lodged by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner came to attend a marriage ceremony of son of one Subhash Dubey at Gwalior on 26.11.2004. At around 10:30 O'clock in the night, when marriage ceremony had been going on at 'Mangal Vatika' Mela Ground, Gwalior, as per the petitioner, at that time Smt. Sarita Bhadoriya, Udayveer Singh Bhadoriya, Dinesh, Vivek, Arjun Singh and Umesh Singh armed with revolver and pistol came on the spot. Sarita Bhadoriya instructed the aforesaid persons to kill the petitioner. The accused persons opened fire at the petitioner. In the aforesaid incident petitioner received injuries over his chest and left leg. Other persons, namely, Dharmesh Singh Bhadoriya, Manendra Singh Rawat, Devendra Sharma, Kamlesh Sharma, Kailash, Chandra Prakash Mishra and Dinesh Chandra Sharma also received bullet injuries. Dinesh Chandra Sharma died subsequently. The petitioner was admitted at Jayarogya Hospital, Gwalior and on his report a Dehati Nalisi was lodged and police registered an offence vide Crime No.438/04 under sections 147,307,302 IPC. Thereafter, petitioner went to his home place at Itawah after his discharge from the hospital. The petitioner further alleged that the matter was not investigated properly and it was transferred to CID illegally.
3. As per the return filed by the respondents, after registration of first information report the investigation was conducted by the then ASI, Golaka-Mandir, Mr. Santosh Singh Kushwaha. He recorded statement of petitioner on 29.11.2004 and thereafter the case was transferred to CID vide order dated 29th December 2004, copy of the order has been filed as Annexure R-1. Then the CID, Gwalior, recorded statements of number of persons including Mr. Kailash Valmiki, Kapil Sharma, Sarita Bhadoriya, Arjun Singh Bhadodya, Jitendra, Rajesh Tripathi, Ramswaroop Singh Kushwaha. During investigation by the CID it came on record that the alleged accused Umesh Singh and Vivek Singh were arrested and lodged at Sub-Jail, Kailaras from 25.11.2004 in a Crime No.227/04 under section 34 of the Excise Act. They were sent to Jail, Sabalgarh on 26.11.2004 at 5:30 p.m. and released from Sabalgarh Jail on 27.11.2004 at 6:35 hours. Similarly, Dinesh Singh was also arrested in connection of an offence under sections 21, 30 of the Arms Act registered vide Crime No.278/01 on 25.11.2004 and released from jail on 27.11.2004. The CID also recorded a finding that Udayveer Singh son of Arjun Singh Bhadoriya was at Sabalgarh for getting release of his brother from jail. On the basis of the above enquiry the CID, Bhopal found that the named accused in the FIR were not present at the scene of the occurrence, hence their involvement in the crime was false. The CID further recommended that charge-sheet against the accused persons be not filed. Copy of the letter dated 16.9.2005 has been filed as Annexure R-2. Thereafter, CID returned the case diary to the local police for further investigation. As per the respondents the investigation is still going on, however, the offenders of the crime could not be traced out as yet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the CID has not conducted the investigation properly. The act of handing over of investigation to CID was against the provisions of the Police Manual and it was done in order to save certain persons. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused persons could not get benefit of alibi at the time of investigation.
5. Contrary to this learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of intervener has submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the petitioner has a remedy to file appropriate objections before the criminal Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet or FR by the investigating agency. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
