Decided on March 10,2021

STATE OF M. P. Respondents


Vishal Mishra,J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents/authorities, whereby, they are not taking any action with respect to the offence under Section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents No. 4 to 6 bearing Crime No.85/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena and have not taken any steps to ensure the arrest and completion of the investigation even after rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court, Morena.
(2.) It is submitted that threat was given by the accused persons that if compromise will not be done, then petitioner has to face dire consequences. It is argued that the petitioner's daughter Rohini @ Binnu was married with respondent No.6/Deepak as per the Hindu customs on 19.05.2015 and thereafter, under the unnatural circumstances, she passed away on 13.09.2020 within a period of five years of the marriage. On the basis of which, an FIR was got registered against the respondent No.4 to 6. The application for anticipatory bail were already rejected by Sessions Court. It is argued that the police authorities are not investigating the matter and are not arresting the respondents till date as per the provisions under Section 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Police Authorities to conclude the investigation without any delay and also not to secure the life and liberty of the witnesses from threatening. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Chawla Vs. Union of India and ors. , 2019 4 SCC 615, wherein certain directions with respect to the witnesses protection scheme 2018 has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner has also approached before the Superintendent of Police, District Morena by way of filing a detailed application, but the same has not been given effect to till date. In such circumstances, he has prayed for following reliefs:- "(1) That, in the light of the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the police authorities be directed to ensure to arrest of the accused person and also to provide protection to the petitioner who is the witness of heinous offence u/s 304-B of IPC. (2) That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded."
(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the arguments made by the petitioner and has argued that the police authorities will complete the investigation and file the charge sheet at the earliest. As far as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the concerning Magistrate, in case, he is not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation is being carried out by the police authorities, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Basu Vs. State of U.P and Others , 2008 AIR(SC) 907 and in case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others , 2016 6 SCC 277 and has argued that the remedy is provided under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to approach before the concerning Magistrate against the investigation carried out by the police authorities.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.