SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 254

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
Omprakash Dhakad – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Rajkumar Joshi,Advocate General

ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to investigating officer to investigate the matter in a free and fair manner.

2. The FIR has been lodged against the applicant. Accordingly, counsel for applicant was directed to address this Court as to whether this Court can supervise the investigation and whether the accused has any say with regard to manner of investigation or not ?

3. Although, counsel for applicant tried to convince this Court by addressing on merits but could not convince this Court with regard to jurisdiction of this Court to supervise the investigation as well as with regard to authority of accused to dictate his term to investigating officer.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Romila Thapar and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 has held as under:-

“23. After having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusing the pleadings and documents produced by both the sides, coupled with the fact that now four named accused have approached this Court and have asked for being transposed as writ petitioners, the following broad points may arise for our consideration:

23.1. (i)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top