Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 276 (MP)

Ramesh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2002-03-06

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN

body2002
JUDGMENT Heard on admission and on interim relief. It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that in this case, the Investigation was carried out by him and a report was submitted earlier after completing the Investigation. After scrutiny of his repol1, he was directed to carry out identification of a person regarding whom there was some doubts of false implication. Accordingly, he had informed witnesses like Ramesh Sharma, Rachhu, father of the deceased, Ramsiya, Raghuvirsingh, Ramshri and Shanti bai etc. to cooperate and come forward for in identification. But, none of them turned up. Thereafter, notices were sent again on 12.7.2001, which were specifically refused and thereafter again notice was given on 11.10.2001. But none of them appeared and it was because of this non-cooperation that the Investigation was taking such a long time. He also submitted that actually the petitioner had met him and had requested him to show the person, who was to be identified in advance to them, which in fairness to that person, he had refused and this was the real reason for non-cooperation and non-appearance by those witnesses. It is further mentioned by the Investigating Officer that still he has submitted final report on 9.1.2002 and on scrutiny, it has been directed that fresh attempts be made for getting that co-accused identified. Now, the matter is with his higher officers and he is waiting for direction in that respect. He assures that if the petitioner and other witnesses, most of whom are close relations of petitioner, cooperate and participate in the identification then within two months thereafter the identification would be completed and challan would be submitted. The Investigating Officer has also brought the case-diary, which is perused. The contents of case-diary support the explanation of the Investigating Officer. It was because of the complaints against false implication of that person etc., that the C.LD. was entrusted with investigation and considering the complaints, this appears to be a quite proper step. Considering all this above position, the respondents are directed to set the Investigation completed in accordance with law and within a period of two months from the date of competition of the identification, if any. was entrusted with investigation and considering the complaints, this appears to be a quite proper step. Considering all this above position, the respondents are directed to set the Investigation completed in accordance with law and within a period of two months from the date of competition of the identification, if any. In case, the petitioner and other witnesses are required for anyone's identification by the Investigating Officer and they fail to appear before him then it may be treated that there was no such time limit of two months prescribed by this Court. The respondent No. 1 is directed to ensure that whatever directions are necessary on the report dated 9.1.2002, submitted by the Investigating Officer they are given by the Superior Authorities to him at the earliest but not later than two months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of.