Back
MP High Court Dismisses FIR Bid by Deceased's Wife; Media Statement Not
Jabalpur, – The has ruled that a statement allegedly made by a deceased person before electronic media cannot, at the stage of seeking registration of an FIR, be conclusively treated as a . The single-judge bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Poonam Kushwaha, the wife of deceased Banshilal Kushwaha, seeking directions to register an FIR against police personnel accused of assaulting her husband.
A Fatal Encounter During Lockdown
The case dates back to , when Banshilal Kushwaha was returning from his field after feeding a cow. According to the petitioner, he was allegedly assaulted by police personnel from . He sustained serious injuries and died four days later on . The wife claimed that before his death, her husband spoke to electronic media and named the responsible police officers. She also noted that the granted ₹50,000 as to the family.
Despite multiple complaints to the , no FIR was registered. The wife then approached the under , seeking a direction to register an FIR and conduct a police investigation.
Magistrate's Discretion to Treat Application as Complaint
The JMFC, after reviewing a police report from the , declined to direct registration of an FIR but chose to treat the application as a under . This order was upheld by the in revision. Aggrieved, the wife invoked the High Court's under .
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner, , argued that the courts below failed to consider crucial evidence, including the deceased's statement to the media—which he termed a —photographs, medical documents, and the grant of . He further alleged that the post-mortem report was manipulated to shield the police personnel.
Opposing the petition, counsel for the respondents, including the state, contended that a thorough had been conducted. Statements were recorded, CCTV footage examined, and medical and forensic reports obtained. Magisterial and departmental inquiries did not substantiate the assault allegations. The respondents placed medical opinions and reports on record indicating that the death was not caused by assault.
High Court's Legal Analysis
The High Court observed that the Magistrate had acted within permissible legal bounds by treating the application as a complaint under . The court emphasized that the applicant was not left remediless; she could lead evidence before the Magistrate, who is competent to proceed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
On the pivotal issue of the deceased's media statement, the court held:
“The alleged statement of the deceased before the electronic media cannot, at this stage, be conclusively treated as a so as to compel registration of an FIR. Its authenticity, contents and are matters requiring proof. Likewise, payment of by the cannot by itself establish or involvement of the police personnel.”
The court also dismissed the allegation of manipulation of the post-mortem report, noting that the petitioner had not produced any cogent material to support the claim. The court declined to undertake a comparative appreciation of the medical and forensic reports in exercise of its .
Decision and Implications
Finding no , , or in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the application under . The petitioner retains the right to proceed with her complaint before the magistrate, where she can present evidence and the court can adopt appropriate procedures.
This ruling underscores that a deceased's statement to the media, without corroboration, does not amount to a compelling police investigation. It reaffirms the magistrate's discretion to choose between directing FIR registration and proceeding with a complaint, ensuring that the complainant still has a remedy.
Case Title:
Case No.:
Neutral Citation:
Bench:
Justice Himanshu Joshi
