AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner prayed a relief in this petition that a CID enquiry or CBI enquiry be ordered in regard to murder of two persons. It is pleaded that the brother of the petitioner was injured in a motorcycle accident. He was admitted at Jaya Rogya Hospital, Gwalior where some persons fired at him and he was killed and one another person was also killed in the incident. FIR of the murder was also lodged at the Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior and the police registered the offence vide crime No. 160/91 and 161/91 under Sections 302 /34 IPC. Subsequently, the police submitted FR in the case and it was accepted by the court on 23.9.1994. The petitioner pleaded that he came to know about the aforesaid fact on 15.9.2012 when he received the information under Right to Information Act.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no limitation in regard to investigation of commission of offence. The offence was serious in nature and police deliberately did not investigate the crime properly, hence, a direction be issued for investigation by CBI or CID. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others,
(ii) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another,
(iii) Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and Another,
In the present case, the FR was accepted by the court on 23.9.1994. As per the petitioner, he received the information about the said fact in the year 2012, when he sought information under Right to Information Act. However, the fact remains that the brother of the petitioner and another person were killed in the year 1991. The petitioner had knowledge about the killing. He had not taken any step for a period of near about 20 years. Now after a period of about 20 years, this petition has been filed.
Looking to the long delay in filing the petition, in my opinion, no direction can be issued by this court in the matter. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay could not be a ground for investigation of crime could not be accepted because in the present case, the investigation was conducted and thereafter police filed the FR which was accepted by the court. Hence, the present case is on different footing. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.