Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 953 (MP)

Anurag Modi v. State of M. P.

2009-08-07

A.K.PATNAIK, AJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J . : - ThisPublic Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner who has founded a Shramik Adivasi Sangathan which according to him is working for the upliftment of marginalized sections of society in Betul , Harda and Khandwa Districts. In the present petition, althoughvarious reliefs have been claimed for the welfare ofmembers of Pardhi Community, the petitioner duringthe course of arguments submitted that he is not pressing for those reliefs and instead prayed for a direction that theincident involving Pardhis on 11-9-2007 at Village Chothia , District Betul anddeaths of Mondru and his wife of that community bedirected to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short'the CBI'). The petitioner has also prayed that the State Government bedirected to adequately compensate the Pardhis whowere affected in the incident and they be allowed to move freely and settle inany part of the State. 2.The case of the petitioner is that Pardhi is ade-notified nomadic community of Madhya Pradesh State .In the year 1995, 11 families of the community were allotted lands by the Gram Panchayat Chothia and under Indira Avas Yojna ,power houses were built for them. One housebelonging to Aalsia Pardhi was built by his own money which was much opulent than other houses. On 9-9-2007 , an upper caste woman in thatarea was allegedly raped and murdered by Pardhis . Inretaliation to this incident, on 11-9-2007 at about 8.00 a.m. a mob of fewhundreds of people led by Sanjay Yadav , BlockCongress President Multai and Raja Pawar of Bhartiya Janta Party, Zila Panchayat Member, Multai , reachedVillage Chothia and started demolishing the Pardhi settlement and setting their houses on fire. Ataround 10.00 a.m. the mob swell tothousands and their activities also increased. The Town Inspector M.L. Verma and Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) D.K. Sakallc of Multai were present inthe village right from the morning. Sometime between 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. , Senior Officers of the District and PoliceAdministration also reached the spot and were present throughout the incident.During that time even the members of Legislative Assembly from Masod and Multai namely Sudhakar Panse and Dr. Sunilam reached the scene of occurrence and they tooremained present till the incident was over. Collector and Superintendent ofPolice reached the spot at about 2.00 p.m. and the mob continued their activities in their presence. Sunilam reached the scene of occurrence and they tooremained present till the incident was over. Collector and Superintendent ofPolice reached the spot at about 2.00 p.m. and the mob continued their activities in their presence. The Pardhis were driven away from the village by local policeand lodged in two camps run by the administration. Photographs and video CD ofthe entire incident has been annexed as Annexures P-1 and P-2. 3.According to the petitioner, Mondru and his wife of Pardhi Community were murdered on the intervening night of10/11-9-2007 after the police informed them to leave the village but till thisdate the police have not arrested their murderers despite the recording ofFirst Information Report regarding their deaths. 4.The petitioner has further submitted that after the Pardhi settlement was set on fire and their belongings were looted, all the powerfulpoliticians of that locality along with their supporters and local peopleinvolved in the incident arranged a public meeting at Village Chothia on 16-9-2007 in which the then Minister In-chargeof Betul Kamal Patel waspresent as Chief Guest and in that meeting the politicians openly acceptedtheir responsibility for the incident with pride and demanded support from theMinister In-charge, who willingly agreed and warned the State Authorities toact against Pardhis or else he would not spare them.In support of his submission, the petitioner has filed the video recording ofthis meeting as Annexure P-3. 5.In this background the petitioner has contended that as the police havedeliberately not investigated the incident of uprooting and looting of Pardhis due to the strong political influence despiteoverwhelming evidence against the perpetrators of crime recorded in video CD,he was constrained to file the present petition. The petitioner has alsochallenged the propriety of the rehabilitation plan of Pardhis prepared by the Collector, Betul , filed as AnnexureR/7-A, which rests on the premises that they are criminal outsiders and theyneed be isolated from the rest of the population for their own safety as muchas the villagers protection. 6.On 23-11-2007 , we issuednotices of the petition to the respondents and by order dated 25-9-2008 we also allowed theintervention applications filed by Aalsia Pardhi and M.P. Human Rights Commission. 7.Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, learned Counsel for Aalsia Pardhi adopted thesubmissions made by the petitioner and Mr. 6.On 23-11-2007 , we issuednotices of the petition to the respondents and by order dated 25-9-2008 we also allowed theintervention applications filed by Aalsia Pardhi and M.P. Human Rights Commission. 7.Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, learned Counsel for Aalsia Pardhi adopted thesubmissions made by the petitioner and Mr. Jaideep Sirpurkar , learned Counsel appearing for M.P. Human RightsCommission apprised us that commission is opposed to confining or Pardhis in one area or locality and favoured their right to move freely and settle in any part of the State. 8.We even watched the video CDs filed as Annexures P-2and P-3 on 26-9-2008 andtwo other subsequent dates in the presence of Counsel for the parties as wellas Collector and Superintendent of Police, Betul . 9.The State Government in its first reply filed on 28-11-2007 has stated that the First Information Reporthas been recorded with regard to incident dated 11-9-2007 at Police Station, Multai against unknown persons for offences under Sections 147,148,436/149 and 437 ofthe Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 495/2007. The reply also states thateffective steps have been taken by the State Government to rehabilitate the Pardhis who were affected in the incident. In another replydated 4-2-2008 the StateGovernment has given details of the rehabilitation plan prepared for Pardhis as well as the amount of compensation paid to each Pardhi who was affected in the incident. The StateGovernment has also filed its comments on 14-10-2008 on the video CD, which was watched on 26-9-2008 . According to the StateGovernment, Gram Panchayat Chothia had granted residential leases to 11 families of Pardhi Community but it cancelled those leases by a unanimous resolution because underthe garb of 11 members, the number of Pardhis increased to 51 and they apart from making encroachments also resorted tocriminal activities. The Gram Panchayat also decidedto shift all the Pardhis from its area and, issuednotices to them to remove their encroachments within a stipulated period. It isfurther stated that since the Pardhis failed toremove their encroachments despite the expiry of stipulated period, the Gram Panchayat on 11-9-2007 undertook an anti-encroachment drive but a mob gathered at the spot and starteddemolishing their houses in every possible manner even by setting fire to them.It is stated in the comments filed that the mob was immediately controlled bythe District Administration and Gram Panchayat because the removal of encroachment was done with the help of their staff andJCB Machine. According to the State Government, local public was also agitatedagainst the entire Pardhi Community because a womanwas raped and murdered by some of its members. The State Government has taken astand that on getting information about the incident the Collector andSuperintendent of Police immediately reached the spot to control the mob. Asregards the deaths of Mondru and his wife, the learnedDeputy Advocate General informed that the police have registered Crime No.643/2008 against unknown persons for offences under Sections 147 and 302/149 atPolice Station Multai and the matter is still underinvestigation. 10.It is now well settled by the Supreme Court that under Article 226 of theConstitution the High Court has the power to direct an investigation by the CBIthough the power should be exercised only in cases where there is sufficientmaterial to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is need for suchinvestigation. [See : Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural EngineeringServices, U.P. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya , AIR 2002 SC 2225 ; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 ]. The State Government has neither deniedthe incident involving Pardhis on 11-9-2007 nor the deaths of Mondru and his wife of that community. We shall, therefore,now examine whether there is sufficient material for coming to a conclusionthat there is need for an investigation by the CBI. 11.The State Government has not disputed the authenticity of the photographsAnnexure P-1 and footage of video recordings Annexures P-2 and P-3. From these, it is clear that a mob led by local politiciansdemolished the settlement of Pardhis by burning theirhouses and using JCB Machine. There is no law in the country which permitsdemolition and destruction of houses of other persons by setting them on fire.But this was done in the presence of Senior Officers of District and PoliceAdministration and even Members of Legislative Assembly. The demolition anddestruction of settlement started at about 8.00 a.m. and continued till 4.00 p.m. The video footageprima facie establishes that thedestruction of Pardhi settlement on 11-9-2007 had the support of LocalAdministration and elected representatives of that area and they played areprehensible role in the entire incident. On 16-9-2007 the local politicians openly claimed theirresponsibility of the incident in a public meeting. At that time the thenminister in-charge was also present. On 16-9-2007 the local politicians openly claimed theirresponsibility of the incident in a public meeting. At that time the thenminister in-charge was also present. It is obvious that the police, therefore,but for recording the First Information Report of the incident against unknownpersons have deliberately not investigated the case properly on a false pretextthat no witness has come forward to speak against anyone. Although now almosttwo years have elapsed, not a single person has been made accused despiteoverwhelming evidence available against the perpetrators of incident in thevideo footage. The police is apparently undertremendous political pressure not to make any person as accused in a seriousincident of 11-9-2007 .Similarly, as regards the case of deaths of Mondru and his wife, we find from police case diary that the investigation has notbeen done properly. As already noted above Mondru wasa Pardhi and Pardhi settlement was set on fire by a mob in the presence of local politicians andSenior Officers of District Administration. On 12-9-2007 , Mondru and hiswife's dead bodies were found lying on the way. There is a report dated 26-11-2007 of the Director of MedicoLegal Institute, Bhopal that thebody of Mondru had inflicted injuries. The policecase diary reveals that police is yet investigating the case against unknownpersons, although now almost two years have passed. 12.All these circumstances compel us to believe that from the very beginning thepolice have not investigated the incident involving destruction of Pardhi settlement on 11-9-2007 and deaths of Mondru and his wife properly. We also find that the police have made every endeavour not to book any person involved in theseincidents. We accordingly, direct the Director, CBI to take over theinvestigation of the cases of the incident involving destruction of Pardhi settlement and deaths of Mondru and his wife and bring investigation to its logical conclusion in accordancewith law. The case diaries of both these cases submitted by the StateGovernment will be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of Registrar Generalof this Court and shall be handed over to an officer authorized to receive themby the Director, CBI. We also direct the State Government and Police tocooperate fully with the CBI in the investigation of cases. The case diaries of both these cases submitted by the StateGovernment will be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of Registrar Generalof this Court and shall be handed over to an officer authorized to receive themby the Director, CBI. We also direct the State Government and Police tocooperate fully with the CBI in the investigation of cases. 13.As regards the prayer of petitioner that affected Pardhis in the incident be directed to be compensated by the State Government and theybe allowed to move freely and settle in any part of the State, we find from thereply dated 4-2-2008 of the State Government that compensation has been paid toeach Pardhi and they have been rehabilitated in thecamps. The details of the amount of compensation paid and rehabilitation donefor the affected Pardhis are also given. There isnothing on record to suggest that any restriction has been imposed on those Pardhis for moving freely and settling in the State. We,therefore, find no need to pass any direction on this prayer of the petitioner. 14.Lastly, the petitioner has raised serious objection to the rehabilitation plan( Anncxurc R/7-A), prepared by the Collector, Betul . This plan is yet to be implemented by the StateGovernment and is reportedly under high level discussion. We hope that theState Government while implementing any rehabilitation plan will not proceed onthe premises that Pardhi Community is criminal and wealso hope that Pardhis will not be put to restrictionin the settlement region which would violate their fundamental rights underArticles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 15.The petition is allowed as indicated in Paras 12 and14 of the order.