IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 3rd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 23876 OF 2022 BETWEEN:-

MAHENDRA KUMAR VAIDYA S/O LATE SHRI BALARAM VAIDYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION TEACHER (SUSPENDED), R/O VILLAGE AND POST DHARAMPURA, TEHSIL LAHAR, PS RAWATPURA, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

….....PETITIONER (BY SHRI R.P.SINGH KAURAV – ADVOCATE)

AND

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

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHIND, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER/SHO RAWATPURA, TEHSIL LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PROSECUTRIX W/O NEETESH VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARRS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST DHARAMPURA, TEHSIL LAHAR, PS – RAWATURA, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

….....RESPONDENTS (SHRI DEVENDRA CHAUBEY – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court 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, 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 of which a reference has been made during the course of arguments in any way provides for holding an independent and parallel inquiry along with the investigation going ahead in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017.

In the instant case, a complaint was made for holding fair investigation in refere