HARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has not been challenged any particular order but seeks a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 5 to protect the rights with regard to livelihood of the petitioner as well as his wife Rama Bai and they be directed not to harass, humiliate and demoralize them without conducting any proper inquiry at the instance of respondent no.6.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent no.6 is the wife Ravindra, son of petitioner. She had filed an application under sec. 125 of CrPC on 20/6/2016 before the Family Court against her husband (Ravindra), which was registered as MJC No.268/2016 and the same has been dismissed vide order dtd. 6/12/2017. Being aggrieved, Criminal Revision No.3898/2017 was filed before this Court and the same has been sent for mediation. Whereabouts of the son Ravindra is not known, therefore, the respondents/police authorities quite often come to the peittioner's place and take him along with his wife to the police station and keep on harassing and humiliating. The police keep on asking the whereabouts of his son, which affects their fundamental rights. In such circumstances, direction may be issued to respondent nos.1 to 5 not to harass the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submitted that not on a single occasion, the petitioner or his wife was called or harassed by the police authorities. It is the duty of the authority to conduct the investigation in proper and fair manner. No complaint whosoever has been lodged by the petitioner but he has filed the writ petition directly before this Court. In such circumstances, no direction can be issued.