HARISHANKAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier he filed writ petition No.2221/2011 before this Court. In the said case petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:- This Court while deciding the said writ petition passedits order and only directed to prefer an application before the respondent No.3 along with copy of the order passed by the Court. In turn, the respondent No.3 was directed to look into the matter personally and to ensure that the investigation is completed impartially within a period of two months. It is further observed that if the respondent No.3 is of the view that impartial investigation is not possible by the Station Officer, the matter may be enquired by some other officer. In any case, this Court was not satisfied that the matter be given for investigation to some other agency. The S.P. also passed the order (Annexure A/9) dated 20.4.2011 and showed his satisfaction about the investigation.

(2.) Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Station Officer himself reported the incident and recorded the FIR. The statement of petitioner which was allegedly recorded on 21.1.2011 under section 161 Cr.P.C. is a manufactured document because on that date the petitioner was on duty at Jhansi, which can be seen from the document obtained by him under the RTI Act, 2005. He further submits that the petitioner's son had love affair with the daughter of Rajendra Parmar and on the invitation of Rajendra Parmar he visited his house on 1.1.2011. Thereafter, petitioner's son was not traceable and on 7.1.2011 his deadbody was found from a well. The petitioner specifically made allegation in his representations against Rajendra Parmar and his daughter but no action has been taken by the police. By placing reliance on Kashmiri Devi vs Delhi Administration and another, 1988 SCC(Cri) 864 and (Babubhai vs. Jamunadas), Shri Lokendra Shrivastava submits that the court below has committed an error in rejecting his application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

(3.) In turn, Shri R.K.Shrivastava and Shri D.S.Tomar, learned counsel appearing for Rajendra Parmar submit that a 'Gum Insaan' was reported at the behest of the petitioner and during such enquiry deadbody was found and, therefore, Police Station Incharge has committed no error in getting it reported on his behalf. They submit that the petitioner has already filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the same allegation and this fact has been suppressed by him in the present petition. They submit that their client has nothing to do with the offence.