In this second-round writ petition, the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the petitioner's plea for investigation and protection, holding the petition premature because the petitioner had been summoned to record his statement and no presumptive conclusion about the investigation could be drawn without it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(Cr.) No. 74 of 2017
Madhukar Dwivedi S/o S. S. Dwivedi, Aged 28 Years R/o Village Sevni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For petitioner - Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State – Shri Neeraj Jain, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order
01/03/2017
2
written report of the petitioner dated 02/02/2015.
3
the petitioner by Annexure P-1 dated 2/02/2015.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri)
JUDGE
gouri
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition praying for investigation and protection is maintainable in the absence of recording of the petitioner's statement.
Whether directing police to register an offence as per a complaint without recording the statement is legally tenable.
Madhukar Dwivedi
State Of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
