LAXMI BAI MALIK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging harassment of Tapas Malik at the hand of the police personnel, the petitioner by way of present letter petition seeks direction for an enquiry through an agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) The respondents on being called upon to respond, have filed the return wherein it is stated that petitioner's son was arrested on 13-11-2009 in connection with the offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 523/2009 which was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Shankuntala on 03-10-2009. It is stated that during the investigation motor-cycle of petitioner's son was found to be involved in the offence and, therefore, he was arrested on 13-11-2009 and was produced before the Competent Court on the same day and was granted bail on 02-12-2009. It is further stated that petitioner's son before being produced in the Court was medically examined and there were no internal or external injuries found on his body. It is further contended that the petitioner's son is not only involved in the case bearing Crime No. 523/2009 but is an accused in five more cases i.e. 325/05 for an offence under section 294, 324, 34, 506(B) & 323 IPC; Crime No. 742/06 for an offence under sections 323, 294, 34 & 506 IPC; Crime No. 184/07 for an offence under section 3/5 Explosive Act, section 506, 384, 452, 294, 34 & 120B IPC; Crime No. 287/08 for an offence under sections 307, 294, 34 IPC; Crime No. 517/09 for an offence under section 294, 506, 147, 148 & 327 IPC. It is accordingly urged that there has never been any manhandling of petitioner's son as would warrant any investigation by an agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation.

(3.) Though the petitioner in a rejoinder does not dispute the registration of as many as six cases against her son, however, it is submitted that the petitioner's son on each time was manhandled and beaten by police personnel. There is no material on record to substantiate the said contention except an affidavit preferred by the petitioner. In absence of any cogent material on record we are not inclined to accept the version put forth by the petitioner that her son has been beaten and manhandled by the police. On the contrary, it appears that petitioner's son is an habitual offender and has been dealt in accordance with law.