RAMU KALLURI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) At the outset, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has raised many issues in the writ petition, in view of the statement made by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 at para No. 9 of their affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that the petitioner's statement may be recorded through any audio, video conference method available, the present writ petition can be closed by giving a direction to the respondents to take the statement of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the FIR No. 11(12)2022 MRM PS U/S 365/325/34 IPC through audio-video conference method.

(3.) Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the petitioner is not an accuse in the said FIR and that the statement of the petitioner is required to be taken in connection with the investigation of the said FIR case. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that as stated by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, the statement of the petitioner can be recorded through audio/video conference method.