ORDER

1. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to quash the FIR No.284/2022 registered at Police Station Panwar, District Rewa MP on 16.10.2022 and subsequent proceedings in the interest of justice

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that a parallel enquiry was done by the S.D.O.(P) Sirmour, District Rewa and from his report dated 30.1.2023 submitted to the S.P. Rewa, it is clear that the FIR in question lodged by the respondent is false, and thus it is submitted that the FIR lodged by the respondent should be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the applicant that S.D.O.(P) Sirmour, District Rewa is not the Investigating Officer of FIR in Crime No.284/2022 registered at Police Station Panwar, District Rewa.

5. The only question for consideration is as to whether a parallel enquiry can be conducted by a Senior Police Officer or not ? 6. This Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Vaidya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 3.11.2022 in W.P.No.23876/2022 (Gwalior Bench), has held that a parallel enquiry under section 36 Cr.P.C. by a Senior Officer is not maintainable during the pendency of the regular investigation and this Court has passed the following order :-

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief.

7.1 That, the respondent/police authority concerned may kindly be directed to file/submit FR report (final-report) before the court concern within a stipulated period of one month.

7.2 That, the respondent/police authority concern further may kindly be directed not to interfere in the life and liberty of the petitioner directly or indirectly in the name of pendency of the matter in the issues.

7.3 That, any other relief during justice in to the matter may kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix / respondent no. 4 lodged FIR on 07.09.2021 alleging offence under Sections 376, 450 of IPC by the petitioner. Although the investigation is going on, but the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind on the instructions given by the S.P., Bhind submitted his report dated 13.01.2022 and came to a conclusion that the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix is false.

Accordingly, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer should be directed to file closure report.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that the parallel enquiry even under Section 36 of CrPC is not maintainable. In spite of that, the S.P., Bhind on his own authorized the SDO(P), Lahar, 3 District Bhind to conduct parallel enquiry. Since the parallel enquiry is not permissible, therefore, the report dated 13.01.2022 is also a nullity and the Investigating Officer cannot look into the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court in the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma and another vs. State of M.P. and another by order dated 11/9/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.12592/2018 has held that parallel enquiry under Section 36 of CrPC during the pendency of investigation is not maintainable. The said order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 18/1/2022 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.1345/2019 (Surendra Singh Gaur vs. State of M.P. and others) and held as under:-

“The present petitioners have approached in their own rights to question the observations/remarks which have been recorded by the learned Judge in the order impugned in reference to the manner in which an inquiry was conduced parallel to the investigation which was undertaken by the Investigating Officer in reference to FIR in Crime No. 75/2017. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that neither Section 36 of the Code nor the circulars