IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

24th OF MAY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 13347 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

BABLESH YADAV S/O LATE SHRI DULICHAND YADAV, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE BUSINESS R/O MEGHNATH CHOWK AKHADA ROAD TIKARI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANTOSH SAHU - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS SWAMI DAYANAND NAGAR, JAHANGIRABAD, CITY BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BETUL DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SHRI RAJA SURYAWANSHI S/O SHRI SUNDARLAL SURYAWANSHI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O CIVIL LINES, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SHRI SUNDARLAL SURYAWANSHI @ KALWA S/O NOT MENTION CIVIL LINES TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SHRI NITESH SHESHKAR (SECURITY GUARD) AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/O CIVIL LINES, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)

………………………………………………………………………………………

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“a. To issue a writ Mandamus commanding respondent authority to carry out fair investigation in the matter by enhancing the offence u/s 307 of IPC, in the interest of justice.

b. To call for the relevant records for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

c. Any other reliefs deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner had suffered a fracture on his head, therefore, the police should have registered an offence under section 307 of IPC but the same has not been done. Accordingly, it is prayed that the police be directed to add an offence under section 307 of IPC. It is also submitted that investigation is pending.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The only question for consideration is as to whether this Court can supervise the investigation or not?

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 has held as under:-

“38. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing or channelling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea is to retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry/investigation into the alleged crime; that inquiry/investigation into every accusation is made on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the logical conclusion in accordance with law. The monitoring by the Court aims to lend credence to the inquiry/investigation being conducted by CBI as premier investigating agency and to eliminate any impression of bias, lack of fairness and objectivity therein.

39. However, the investigation/inquiry monitored by the court does not mean that the court supervises such investigation/inquiry. To supervise would mean to observe and direct the execution of a task whereas to monitor would only mean to maintain surveillance. The concern and interest of the court in such “Court-directed” or “Court-monitored” cases is that there is no undue delay in the investigation, and the investigation is conducted in a free and fair manner with no external interference. In such a process, the people acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case would also have a sense of security and they would cooperate with the investigation given that the superior courts are seized of the matter. We find that in some cases, the expression “Court-monitored” has been interchangeably