Kasna Parmar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The applicant has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking investigation in case of unnatural death of his daughter. The petitioner is praying that respondent No.1 be directed to register an FIR against Jav Singh and complete the enquiry as per the provisions of Section 174 and 175 of the Cr.P.C in the interest of justice.

Facts of the case are as under:

On 19.12.2018 near about 9:00 PM daughter of the applicant gone out of the house to deliver the cellphone to Jav Singh. On 20.12.2018, near about 17:00 hours, her daughter body's was found in the well of the house of applicant. A merg intimation was send to the Police Station- Ranapur, Jhabua at 20:10 hours on the same day. The dead body was send for the postmortem and as per the postmortem report dated 21.12.2018 the cause of death is not find out, therefore, viscera of organ is preserve. The final report can be given after Viscera report. The postmortem was done within 24 hours duration from the death. The deceased was identified as aged about 17 years, daughter of applicant Ban Singh.

On 27.12.2018 applicant made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Jhabua that the Police Station, Ranapur is not registering FIR as per his statement. The Investigating Officer is trying to protect Jav Singh. The mobile of deceased was found in possession of Jav Singh. The wife of the applicant is getting threat from the family members of Jav Singh. When after lapse of 3 months the respondents have not prepared inquest report under Section 174 and 175 and did not lodged the FIR against the alleged accused under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the applicant has approached this Court by way of petition under Section 482.

This Court has directed the Govt. Advocate to produce the case diary & keep Investigating Officer present in Court.

Today, Shri Kailash Chouhan (Investigating Officer) and Station House Officer, Ranapur, District Jhabua is present alongwith photocopy of the case diary. On 20.04.2019, a final report has been sent to SDM Jhabua with the case diary that as per the FSL report and the material collected. So far no offence is said to have been made out.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the witnesses have categorically stated that daughter of the applicant was in affair with Jav Singh and last night they were together and despite that he has not been made accused. He has referred the statement of Balwanti recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C on 26.12.2018 in which she has stated that he had a talk with Jav Singh at near about 12 on the day of incident and he told that he met deceased in preceding night, she returned the mobile and deceased thereafter, she left. He apprehended that she may commit suicide by jumping into the Well and for which he would be blamed. Learned counsel further submits that statement of Balwanti creates doubt because he was awarer in the day time that deceased had already died due to drowning in the well. The Police has not investigated the matter from this angle. In the photograph certain injuries are visible which also creates doubt, therefore, the proper investigation has not been done and the Police is trying to protect the main culprit. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the High Court of Gujarat in case of Patel Lilabhai Ambalal and Others Vs. Patel Kanubhai Mafatlal & Others, reported in 1989 Cri.L.J. 1898.

Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, reported in 2016 6 SCC 277 and the judgement passed by this Court in case of Smt. Sharmila Tagore (Patoudi) Vs. State of M.P. (W.A.No.709/2016, dated 13.10.2016), Harish Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.11970/2016), Rahul Chopda Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.3951/2016 and in the matter of Satish Rewal Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.5890/2016, dated 26.10.2016) Surendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.4019/2016, dated 01.09.2016).

It is further submitted that if the petitioner is having any grudge against the investigation then he is having remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156 or Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Police has conducted the investigation and found that no offence have been committed.

On the basis of Merg Information, the Police has started investigation in the unnatural death of applicant's daughter. After investigation, the Police has came to conclusion that no offence said to have been made out.

Conclusion:

In case of S.N. Sharma Vs. Vipin Tiwari, reported in 1970 CRLJ 764, the the Supreme Court has observed that the power of Police to investigate into cognizable offence is uncontrolled by Magistrate and it is only in case in which the Police decide not to investigate that the Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation or in an alternate, himself proceed.

The investigation is exclusive within the domain of executive and it is not desirable for the Court to interfere with the investigation in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. Only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result into miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should interfere at any stage of investigation.

The applicant is having doubt over Jav Singh because he was having affair with the deceased and her mobile was found in his possession. He has not been made respondent in this petition, therefore, no direction can be given against him in this petition. Now, the investigation has been completed and report has been sent to the SDOP. The petitioner has already made representation to the Superintendent of Police, Jhabua, therefore, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police Jhabua to look into the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the basis of material collected by the Police in the case diary. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the Superintendent of Police then he is having further remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate by way of application under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.