Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 265 (MP)

NIHALA DEVI v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-03-03

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Shri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 1 to 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner though made a request for grant of time to file rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents, but keeping in view the statements made in the return, such a prayer is not reasonable. 2. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- "(a) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue writ of 'mandamus' to direct to respondent No. 2 to reinvestigate the case in relation to Crime No. 88/2013 of P.S. Kotwali Satna through CID or any other independent agency, in the interest of justice. (b) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to call explanation to respondent No. 3 that under which provision and circumstances he transferred the case for preliminary enquiry in the one of accused's choice police station and take appropriate action. (c) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct respondent No. 2 for taking appropriate action under section 29 of Police Act against respondents No. 7 and 8. (d) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue any other writ or direction in the interest of justice as the Court deems fit." 3. Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, a return is filed by the respondents and it is contended that investigation of Crime No. 88/2013 was completed and against the accused person a Challan has been filed. However, during the inspection and supervision of the prosecution proceedings, the Inspector General of Police, Rewa, has examined certain facts and has directed the senior Superintendent of Police Satna to direct further investigation in the matter in respect of the offences said to be committed by others who were not named as accused in the earlier proceedings and to file a supplementary Challan under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mainly the relief of the petitioner would be the same as in any case, even if the writ petition is allowed, only direction would be for re-investigation or further investigation in the matter and in case any offence is made out, to file a supplementary Challan against the accused persons. 4. Mainly the relief of the petitioner would be the same as in any case, even if the writ petition is allowed, only direction would be for re-investigation or further investigation in the matter and in case any offence is made out, to file a supplementary Challan against the accused persons. That being so, since the action in that respect is taken by the respondents themselves under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Rewa, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. 5. Before parting with the petition, the Police authorities are directed to comply with the instructions of the Inspector General of Police, Rewa, expeditiously. The writ petition stands disposed of.