Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1551 (MP)

Ajay Gusai v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-19

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2022
JUDGMENT Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs: i) That the respondents no.1 to 5 may kindly be directed to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners in the interest of justice. ii) That, the respondents no.1 to 5 may kindly be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners on the basis of false complaints made by the Respondent no.6 or the family members of the petitioner no.2/social elements. iii) That the action of the respondent no.6 and other anti-social elements threatening the petitioners and interfering in this wedded life may kindly be declared to be illegal, null and void and consequently they be restrained from making such an act. iv) That, the cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioners. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and are of marriageable age. They do not have any disqualification under Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted that they have performed marriage on 5.9.2022 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Loha Mandi, Kila Gate, Gwalior. On 27.10.2022, they have made a complaint to Station House Officer, Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind and Station House Officer, Shivpuri Dehat, District Shivpuri pointing out that the family members are extending a threat to falsely implicate them in a criminal case and even the petitioners are having fear from some anti-social elements and, accordingly, it is prayed that protection may be granted to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners do not want any police protection but their only anxiety is that if any FIR has been lodged, then no action should be taken on the said false FIR. 3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that so far as the complaint made to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind and Station House Officer, Shivpuri Dehat, District Shivpuri is concerned, it neither bears any acknowledgment nor any postal receipt to show that it was ever dispatched. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that so far as the complaint made to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind and Station House Officer, Shivpuri Dehat, District Shivpuri is concerned, it neither bears any acknowledgment nor any postal receipt to show that it was ever dispatched. Furthermore, it is submitted that whenever any FIR is lodged, then the police after completing the investigation has a right to either file closure report or charge sheet. Therefore, if any FIR has been lodged against any of the petitioners, then it shall be considered and investigated in accordance with law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated that he does not require any police protection but their only anxiety is that no false FIR should be lodged. 6. Whether an FIR is false or not, cannot be ascertained without investigating the same. Further, if any missing person report or any FIR of abduction/kidnapping has been lodged, then the same has to be investigated after recording the statement of petitioner No.2. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner No.2 is examined by the police, it is not possible for the police to treat the said FIR as a false FIR. 7. So far as the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioners regarding some threats from anti-social element is concerned, neither there is any reference in the writ petition nor the petitioners have disclosed names of anti-social elements from whom they are apprehending some threats to their life. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in case if any FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No.1, then the statement of petitioner No.2 shall be recorded and the police shall proceed only in accordance with law. 9. With aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.