Anurag Modi vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard Counsel for the parties. The principal relief claimed in this petition is to direct handing over of the investigation of offence concerning the incident at Khirkiya-Chhipabad, dated 19-9-2013 to CBI and in particular to enquire into the allegations of involvement of MLA Kamal Patel, now Ex-MLA, and his son Sudip Patel and other persons named in the petition and shown in the photographs attached in the rejoinder and additional documents. Further relief is claimed that the respondent No. 7 be directed to file progress report about the investigation to ascertain whether the investigation is free or fair and made responsibly.

From the reply affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it has come on record that the offence concerning the said incident has been registered and duly investigated. The son of the Ex-MLA, Kamal Patel has been named as accused and has proceeded in accordance with law. The charge-sheet has already been filed in the concerned Court.

The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the Investigation does not refer to the material, which has been brought on record in this petition. In the context of this grievance, it needs to be noted that the petitioner was called upon to remain present by the Investigating Officer for recording of his statement and to produce all relevant material in his possession. In spite of that requisition, the petitioner failed to co-operate in the investigation and did not remain present in the office of the Investigation Officer. This factual position is stated in the additional affidavit dated 2-12-2013.

In our opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the Investigating Officer to proceed with the Investigation and filing the charge-sheet. As the documents/evidence, which the petitioner has referred to in this petition could be taken on record by the Investigation Officer, only if the petitioner gave his statement to the Investigation Officer and to be made part of the charge-sheet. The petitioner having failed to do so cannot be heard to make any grievance in that behalf much less against the Investigating Officer.

In any case, the investigation cannot be based on the news paper reports on which the petitioner intends to rely but is required to be done by the Investigating Officer after recording of the statement of concerned witnesses. That process has already been completed. The apprehension of the petitioner that the investigation is not free and fair, is not substantiated from the record. That is a completely misplaced apprehension. Further, CBI has made it clear that considering the nature of offence, it is not necessary for it to take over the investigation. Hence, this petition fails and the same is disposed of.