PATIRAM RAWAT Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these matters are arising out of same incident and involve common questions of facts and law, with the consent, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. WP No. 2312/2013

(2.) FACTS as narrated by the petitioners are that they are resident of Tehsil Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena. Petitioner No. 4 in WP No. 2312/2013 had love affair with respondent No.5. They solemnized marriage on their own volition and started living in Tehsil Jaghadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. Some dispute took place among them which led to filing of a suit for restitution of Conjugal rights. In the said suit, a comprise was entered into between petitioner No. 4 and Mrs. Reena Jatav. Settlement is filed as Annexure P/3. It is the case of the petitioner that the relatives of respondent No.5 were not happy with the said marriage and they lodged false complaint in Police Station. In turn, respondent No.5 herself appeared before the police authorities and deposed that she is voluntarily residing with petitioner No.4. However, the police authorities could not record said statement because of pressure of relatives of respondent No.5.

(3.) SHRI Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court to document Annexure P/5 urged that report itself shows that about 150 persons created hindrance when statement of Reena Jatav was sought to be recorded. Legal opinion was sought and in turn, it was opined that no such incident had taken place. It is further urged that respondents approached this Court by filing WP No. 4959/2012. They did not disclose the correct facts and obtained order which resulted into lodging of FIR against the petitioner. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR be quashed or in alternative matter be directed to be investigated by CID Police or some senior IPS Officer. In support his submission, Shri Visoriya relied on (Jamuna Chaudhary and others Vs. State of Bihar, 1974 AIR(SC) 1822). It is argued that it is the duty of investigating officer to investigate the matter independently. He should not act merely to bolster up the prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but must bring out the real or unvarnished truth. He relied on (Kedarnath Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 1 MPHT 233).