SURENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 16/07/2007 passed in R.T. No.803/2004 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in which learned trial Court has made some remark about the direction for taking action against the applicant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that Police Station, Kohefiza, Bhopal registered Crime No.505/2001 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B and 182 of IPC. In that crime number the applicant investigated some part of the matter in connection with Fauzia Usman alias Monika Bedi and after conducting the investigation submitted supplementary charge sheet against the then accused Fauzia Usman alias Monika Bedi. During trial, recorded his own statement before the trial Court as P.W.40 (S.K. Shukla, DSP). Learned trial Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence of all the witnesses delivered a judgment on 16/07/2007 and in the said judgment while evaluating the evidence found so many discrepancies committed during investigation and owing to that latches extended the benefit of doubt to the accused Fauzia Usman alias Monika Bedi and made certain finding about the latches committed by the applicant during investigation and finally in para-87 of the judgment along with other investigating persons mentioned this fact that applicant, the then DSP-S.K. Shukla, did not perform the duties and liabilities properly, hence committed negligency and irregularities during investigation and held that the applicant did not try to bring the actual truth on record, but, indirectly provided benefit to the accused, thus, expecting from the department to take hard action against the persons who committed latches in investigation for that the accused took benefit of that latches.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that remark, the applicant has filed this petition on the ground that adverse remark contained in paras 18, 28, 32, 57, 59, 87 on the method of investigation as well as direction contained in para-87 of the judgment to taking action against the applicant is wholly illegal, unjust, unwarranted and legally unsustainable. The applicant with due diligence investigated the matter and remark made in the impugned judgment is punitive in character. It is also submitted that the applicant has not been provided opportunity of explaining the same. Learned trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction which is unwarranted. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Mohoammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703, Govindaraj Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka, 1980 Cr.L.J. 879, Iresh Shyam Ali Vs. State of Nagaland and another, 1986 Cri.L.J. 569, S.K. Viswambaran Vs. E. Koyakunju and others, AIR 1987 SC 1436, Panchanan Parida Vs. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, 1991 Cri.L.J. 3037, B.V. Naik Vs. State of Karnataka, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3441, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 4 SCC 158 and Testa Setalvad and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 10 SCC 88.