IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 29 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50417 of 2024 RAHUL JATAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Sharma - Advocate for applicants.

Smt. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

ORDER This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. in Crime No.0196/2023 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 354 of IPC as well as RCT No.4129/2023 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that against the F.I.R. lodged by complainant in Crime No.196//2023, he had made an application for free and fair investigation and, accordingly, the Superintendent of Police directed the CSP, Morar, District Gwalior to conduct an inquiry who by his report dated 25.07.2023 opined that no offence was committed.

3 . Accordingly, counsel for applicant was directed to address on the question as to whether a parallel inquiry during pendency of investigation is permissible or not and whether the accused has any right to interfere in the investigation or not.

4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since parallel inquiry was conducted on the basis of his application, therefore, Superintendent of Police, Signature Not Verified Gwalior was of the view that such an application is maintainable.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P.

& Others passed on 18.01.2022 in SLP (Crl.) 1345/2019 has held that a parallel inquiry during the pendency of investigation is not maintainable. However, it appears that in spite of law of land, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior has directed for conducting a parallel inquiry.

7. 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) and 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 a parallel inquiry under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable during pendency of the investigation.

8. Merely because the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior had directed for parallel inquiry that would not mean that his act was in accordance with law. Since parallel inquiry during the pendency of investigation is not maintainable, therefore, applicant cannot take advantage of report submitted by CSP on

25.07.2023.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that in case, if said report has been filed alongwith charge sheet, then the same shall not be taken into consideration by the trial Court or else if such said report is relied upon by the applicants in their defence, then the same shall not be considered by the trial Court while deciding the trial.

10. So far as the scope of application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well established principle of law that this Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. In Signature Not Verified the case of XYZ vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718, Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319, Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350, State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021, Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sange