KHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YESTERDAY we have recorded the statement of Roopa, who was produced before us from judicial custody. As the time of the Court was over, Shri Dubey appearing for respondent No. 3 requested for today to start cross -examination of Roopa.

(2.) TODAY an objection in preliminary nature is raised that any enquiry conducted by this Court is likely to prejudice the proceedings pending before the A.C.J.M. on the application for alleged illegal detention in police custody filed on behalf of Roopa. Few orders of this Court as also Supreme Court are cited to state that normally the enquiry should be made over to a subordinate Court or to any other competent officer. It is also stated that the enquiry held by us is likely to prejudice any criminal case which may be filed in future against the police officer for the alleged misdeed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to proceed any further in the matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is true that this Court does not ordinarily record the evidence, but it has ample power to do so where violation of fundamental right under Article 21 is alleged. The rules of the High Court contained in rule 6 (b) in Chapter -I and rule 40 in Chapter -II of the High Court Rules framed for proceedings under Article 226 permit this Court to record the evidence in the proceedings. Since we have already commenced examining Roopa, who is produced before us from the judicial custody and the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondents to cross -examine him, we do not think its proper at this stage to hand -over the enquiry to any sub -ordinate Court or authority. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled.