IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. / 2018
APPLICANT : ___________ Tated
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh
INDEX
S.No. DESCRIPTION OF THE Annexure Page
DOCUMENTS No. No.
1. Index 1
2. Application U/s 482 of Cr.P.C. 2 to
3. List of Documents
4. Copy of the letter dated A/1
03.05.2018
5. Copy of the medical prescription A/2
6. Vakalatnama/Memo
Jabalpur (Abhijeet A. Awasthi)
Dated: .05.2018 Counsel for Applicant
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. _____________/2018
APPLICANT _________Tated S/o Shri Rajendra
Tated, Aged about ____ years,
occupation: Businessman, Resident
of: Kothi Bazaar, Police Station:
Betul, Tehsil & District: Betul
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh, through
Police Station Kotwali, District: Betul
(MP)
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Particulars of Crime
Crime No.- 331/2018
P.S. : Betul kotwali, District Betul (MP)
Offences: Section 302, 304B, 201 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860
The instant application under Section 482 of CrPC is being preferred
against the inaction on the part of respondent in carrying out fair
and impartial investigation of the matter by taking into consideration
the material furnished by the family members of the accused
persons which is sufficient to exonerate them of all allegations.
The Applicant above named beg to submit as under:
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. That, this is first application under Section 482 of CrPC with
respect to the aforestated crime number.
2. That, the Marriage was solemnized between the deceased
Neha Parakh and the accused Aniruddh Tated on 22.01.2017
at Raipur and thereafter Neha started residing in the joint
family with the Accused persons.
3. That, during her stay with the family, they visited several
tourist destinations such as Goa, Mumbai, Chhindwara, Pench
National Park, Rishikesh, other places at Uttarakhand,
Allahabad, Delhi etc. and she had a cordial relationship with
not only the husband but also with the family members who
were residing at the same ancestral house.
4. That, on 28.04.2018, during noon time, around 2:30 PM, the
maid of the ancestral house informed the mother-in-law of the
Deceased that the Deceased is not responding to calls and is
not opening the door of her room. So when the mother-in-law
visited the house, she witnessed that the body of the
Deceased was hanging to a rope attached to the window
(रोशनदान) of the room. Thereafter she cut the rope with the
help of a knife and tried to revive the deceased by using CPR.
Then they took her to a Private Hospital (Lashkare Hospital,
Betul) where she was declared as brought dead and advised
the family members who had gone to the hospital to take her
to Government Hospital.
5. That, thereafter, the husband of the Deceased informed the
father of the Deceased that she is no more whereafter the
father of the Deceased contacted the Police that the post-
mortem of the Deceased should only take place in their
presence. Therefore, the body of the Deceased was kept in
the Mortuary awaiting the arrival of her father.
6. That, on 29.04.2018, a team of three doctors conducted post-
mortem on the corpus of the Deceased and no injury was
observed by them on the vital organs of the Deceased rather
scratch marks (abrasions) on both the hands of the Deceased
were observed in the Report and in conclusion, following
observation has been made: “asphyxia due to suspectedly
strangulation probably homicidal”. So it is clear that no
definite medical opinion has been recorded. Apart from it,
there are no allegations of the family members of the
Deceased about demand of dowry as to how much dowry was
demanded and when it was demanded.
7. That, on 04.05.2018, after the respondent having arrested the
accused persons on 29.04.2018, the Applicant made an
application to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Betul to
investigate the matter in the context that the deceased was
the patient of depression and under the same influence she
committed suicide as there were cordial relationship between
the deceased and the accused persons. The accused persons
candidly brought it to the notice of the Police that a video was
recorded by her soon before she committed suicide, however,
the same was accidently deleted from her mobile phone. A
copy of the letter dated 03.05.2018 is annexed herewith as
Annexure A/1.
8. That, since then more than 20 days have lapsed but no steps
have been taken by the respondent in carrying out
investigation into the inputs given by the present applicant
which are relevant in the light of the fact that the whole
nature of the case would change which would clearly lead to
exoneration of the accused persons.
9. That, the fact regarding medical status of the present
applicant is supported by the documents which are already in
possession of the Police which demonstrate that the deceased
was undergoing a treatment at Pragya Hospital in Raipur
which is a renowned Psychiatric Hospital. Infact the family
members of the deceased never disclosed about the fact that
the deceased was the patient of depression and from the
perusal of the prescriptions that she was under heavy
medication with constant supervision by the doctors. A copy
of the medical prescription is annexed herewith as Annexure
A/2.
10. That, due to the inaction on the part of the respondent, the
instant petition is filed on the following grounds :
GROUNDS
11. Because the Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Chaudhary
v. State of Bihar, (1974) 3 SCC 774 had outlined duty of
the Investigating Officer in the following manner:-
“11. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not
merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such
evidence as may enable the Court to record a
conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.
It is apparent that the prosecution witnesses had tried
to omit altogether any reference to at least the
injuries of the appellant Ramanandan because there
was a cross case in which such an admission could
have been made use of to support the prosecution in
that case. Dukharan, however, made a very feeble
and obviously untruthful attempt to account for the
injuries of Ramanandan by saying that he had
snatched a pharsa from one of the members of the
crowd and had started swinging it around. He could
not, however, state whether any one was injured by
it. He even stated that he did not recognise the man
from whom he had snatched the pharsa. Although he
said that he knew Ramanandan from his childhood,
he could not say whether all his fingers were present
on the day of occurrence. It was apparent that he
was trying to conceal some occurrence over the
Shikmi land that morning in which the fingers of
Ramanandan were chopped off. He admitted that
there was a dispute between Raghubir, Jamuna, and
Rajdhari which had lasted 2½ to 3 years over the
Shikmi land. In fact, this dispute was given as the
only cause of the incident set up by the prosecution.”
12. Because, in another judgment by the Apex Court i.e. Mahavir
Singh v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220, it has been
held that:-
“26. Here in the instant case, no doubt, an innocent
man has lost his life at the hands of another man,
and looking at the way in which the investigation was
handled, we are sure to observe that it was carried
out in a lacklustre manner. The approach of the
investigating officer in recording the statements of
witnesses, collecting the evidence and preparation of
site map has remained unmindful. The investigating
officer, dealing with a murder case, is expected to be
diligent, truthful and fair in his approach and his
performance should always be in conformity with the
police manual and a default or breach of duty may
prove fatal to the prosecution case. We may hasten
to add that in the present case the investigation was
carried out with unconcerned and uninspiring
performance. There was no firm and sincere effort
with the needed zeal and spirit to bring home the
guilt of the accused. We feel that there are no
compelling and substantial reasons for the High Court
to interfere with the order of acquittal when the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt
of the accused. Added to this, the accused has
already undergone nine years of imprisonment and
we feel that it is a fit case inviting interference by this
Court.That, the Applicant has not done any wrong
and he has been falsely implicated in the matter.
13. Because, the offences have been registered without
considering the fact that, the evidence against the present
accused persons are not admissible in the eye of law.
14. Because, it is well established principle of law that, the
accused is to be treated innocent unless proven guilty.
PRAYER
It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to
direct the respondent conduct investigation in fair and impartial
manner and to conduct inquiry into the facts stated in the letter
dated 03.05.2018 by the present applicant in the interest of justice.
Jabalpur (Abhijeet A. Awasthi)
Dated: .05.2018 Counsel for Applicant
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. / 2018
APPLICANT : ___________ Tated
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S.No Descriptions of Date of Original/ Numb
Document Document Copy er of
Pages
01 Copy of Order dated A/1 Copy __Pag
15.05.2018 es
02 Copy of medical A/2 Copy __Pag
Prescription. es
Jabalpur (Abhijeet A. Awasthi)
Dated: .05.2018 Counsel for Applicant
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. / 2018
APPLICANT : ___________ Tated
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh
AFFIDAVIT
I, ________, Shri Rajendra Tated, Aged about ____ years,
occupation: Businessman, Resident of: Kothi Bazaar, Police Station:
Betul, Tehsil & District: Betul do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under:-
That, I am the applicant in the instant petition and able to swear the
instant, the instant Memo of petition has been drafted by me and all
the averments made herein are under my instructions.
That, the instant petition has been drafted by me and all the
averments made herein are under my instructions.
That, the contents of the Paragraphs 1 to ____ are true and correct
to my personal knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, __________, the above named Deponent do hereby verify that
the contents of Paras 1 to 3 of the above Affidavit are true to my
personal knowledge.
Signed and verified on this ____ Day of _______ at ________.
DEPONENT
