Sanyam Singh Gurjar vs State of M.P.

Heard through Video Conferencing.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to

CBI for making fair investigation or fresh investigation or de novo investigation as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper to protect the Constitutional right of the

petitioner in the crime No. 89/2004 as registered by P.S. Mehgaon district Bhind, M.P. under section 302/34 of IPC in the facts and circumstances as mentioned

hereinabove, in the interest of justice.â€​

In the subject matter of this petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that the police has filed the expunge report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C.

However, it has not been clarified as to whether the said expunge report is still pending or not ?

According to the petitioner, on 12.03.2004, an FIR in Crime No. 89/2004 was lodged under Section 302 of IPC against certain persons. TheÂ

matter was investigated and after concluding the investigation, the police filed an expunge report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. The

said expunge report was accepted by the Trial Magistrate by order dated 28.02.2005 (Annexure P-23). The order of the

Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bhind,

which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 64/2005. The said revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Court of

Magistrate. The order passed by the Revisional Court was challenged by the accused Jai Singh by filing Criminal Revision No. 165/2006 before this

Court, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 15.11.2006 and the order passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)

District Bhind, was set aside, however, the matter was remanded back to the Court of Magistrate to decide the expunge report after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the complainant as well as to the accused. Since there was some delay in the disposal of the matter, therefore, the petitioner

filed W.P. No. 3210/2009 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 26.08.2009 and the JMFC, Mehgaon District Bhind was directed to

comply the order dated 15.11.2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 165/2006. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the concerning

Magistrate and the accused Jai Singh was released on furnishing the personal bond under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. after accepting the expunge report.

The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No.11/2010, which was decided by 4th Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhind by order dated 10.05.2010 and the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the JMFC, Mehgaon District Bhind was affirmed. The order of the

4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind was challenged by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, which

was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 5674/2010 and by order dated 27.02.2020 the orders passed by the Court of JMFC, Mehgaon District Bhind as well as

the Revisional Court / 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind were affirmed.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since it is a case of murder, therefore, the matter should be reopened and should be re-investigated

by an independent agency like CBI etc.

When a specific question was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether this Court can reopen the matter after the proceeding under Section

169 of Cr.P.C. have attained finality then the counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to cite any judgment in support of his contention.

However, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since it is a case of murder, therefore, in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, this Court can reopen the matter and can direct for further investigation by independent agency like CBI.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The undisputed fact is that the offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 2004. The police after concluding the investigation filed the expunge

report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. and the said expunge report was accepted by the Trial Magistrate after extending the opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner. The order of the Magistrate was unsuccessfully challenged before the Sessions Court in a revision and later on the order passed by the

Revisional Court was challenged by the petitioner unsuccessfully before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Thus, it is clear that the matter has attained finality and it cannot be reopened after 16 years of the alleged offence. When the matter was being

considered under Section 169 of Cr.P.C., then the petitioner could have pointed out the lapses in the investigation done by the police and could have

prayed for further investigation. It was not done by the petitioner. Even from the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.

5674/2010, it is clear that no assistance was given by the counsel for the petitioner.

Since the matters cannot be reopened again and again and the petitioner did not ask for further investigation in his objection which was raised against

the expunge report filed under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. and the proceedings under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. have already attained finality up to the stage

of High Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.