Avinash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
WRIT PETITION No. 27409 of 2026
VIJAY KUMAR SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gagan Bajad, learned
counsel for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Romil Verma appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent [INT].
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 33870 of 2024
VIJAY KUMR SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gagan Bajad, learned
counsel for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Romil Verma appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent [INT].
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33769 of 2026
AVINASH
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Yadav, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma, counsel for the State.
Heard On;29 & 30.07.2026
Delivered On:24.08.2026
ORDER
1. All the proceedings arises out in connection with the enquiry conducted
by JMFC, Indore under Section 176(1A) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for custodial death of
one Arjun Singare when he was in custody at Police Station Maanpur, Indore
during the period of 01.09.2022 to till his death and accordingly, a Merg
No.68/2022 was registered at Police Station-Maanpur, Indore.
2. Petitioner/Vijay Kumar Sisodia, the than In-charge, Police Station-
Maanpur, Indore approached thorough WP No.27409/2026 for quashment of the
order dated 29.06.2026 passed in MJCR No.2948/2022.
3. Petitioner/ Vijay Kumar Sisodia has already preferred a Writ Petition
No.33870/2024 seeking the following reliefs:-
A. with cost by issuing an appropriate writ/direction or order for
granting the justice to the petitioner and deceased.
B. By issuing appropriate direction for the appropriate
supervision of the entire case till the just decision.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
C. by directing Respondent 1-5 to take immediate action on CCTV
recording against the wrong doers visible in CCTV committing actions
against the deceased; while producing 65B of Indian Evidence Act
accordingly.
D. By directing respondent no. 1-5 to take CCTV recording into
consideration in Murg inquiry and all subsequent proceedings.
E. . By calling Record of judicial enquiry and after examination
appropriate directions be issued for spot visit/inspection of P.S. Manpur
and other appropriate place of death of Arjun so alleged.
F. By allowing the petitioner to produce P/2 with chronology of
events as appearing in CCTV while issuing appropriate direction to
respondent no. 7 to considering the Annexure P/2 & P/3 in inquiry.
G. . In the interest of justice & fair investigation the respondents
be directed to compare signatures of the deceased between the 02-09-22
and 03-09-22 with original specimen available in all other crime
numbers in order to investigate this aspect.
H. By granting any other relief or order which the court finds fit in
the circumstance of the case kindly be granted.
4. MCRC No.33769/2026 is preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
seeking quashment of the order dated 29.06.2026 passed in MJCR No.2948/2022
by Avinash Chouhan, a constable posted at the relevant point of time at Police
Station, Maanpur, Indore.
5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these petitions are that one Arjun S/o
Devkar Singare R/o Village Gitti Foda Gawlipura, P.S. Maanpur, Indore was
required in connection with Crime No.441/2022 registered at Police Station,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
Maanpur, Indore under Section 394 and 402 of IPC and under section 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, 1959 as well as in connection with Crime No.397/2022 registered at
Police Station-Maanpur, Indore under Section 394 of IPC. He was taken into the
custody on 02.09.2022 by police officers of Police Station-Maanpur. During the
custody at Police Station Maanpur, Indore, he was taken to civil hospital Maanpur
where he was declared dead at 0:55AM on 03.09.2022. Superintendent of Police,
Indore (Rural) requested District and Sessions Judge, Indore for conducting an
enquiry by the JMFC under section 176(1A) of Cr.P.C., 1973 vide letter dated
03.09.2022.
6. Earlier, Shri Yash Kumar Singh, JMFC, Indore conducted the enquiry and
thereafter, the enquiry was proceeded by Shri Dev Kumar, JMFC, Indore.
7. After conducting the enquiry, Shri Dev Kumar, JMFC, Indore submitted
its report dated 29.06.2026 in MJCR No.2948/2022 recording the finding in para
no.121 to 123 as below:-
“120. उपरोक्तbतिचाररीय त्रश्तrत्रमांर त1तलगर bत4त ेतिrषत र्षों तेत त्तपषतटत त
ि -त
121. थरrर ांरrपुरत यतपुिलेतद्वरररतििrर त02-03 िेbम्त3र, 2022 ोतअर्ुrत
िे गररेतिपbरतिेच रीतिे गररेतिrचरेयतिगट्टयफोडरतांरrपुर, ोतपुिलेतअििरक्षरतांेंत
िल रतग र।तbिोपरर bतथरrरतांरrपुरतांेंतपि्तथतपुिले िांु ो /पुिलेतअिि ररर ो त
द्वरररतअर्ुrतिे गररेत ेते च िरिr तअिि ररो , ेर िचिि तअिि ररो ,तांरrचतअिि ररो त
एच तउक्तते 3 ितांेंतेां तेां तपरतांरrrय तेचोच्चतन्यर रल तएच तांरrrय तउच्चत
न्यर रल तां.्रश.तद्वरररतिि ेतग ेतिrिेशो तएच तस्व त ेतपिय त bुव्ो त रतर्रr3ूझ रत
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
खुलरतउल्ल घrत रbेतहुएतअर्ुrतिे गररेत ेतेरथतग ियरतांररपयटतएच त्रशbरडrरत रररbत
रतउे ेतिेरतेतप रतb तपूरेतशरयरतपरतग ियरताोटेतपहु ारईतगई।तपुिलेतद्वरररत
रररbतउक्ततग ियरतांररपयटतएच त्रशbरडrरत ेत्रशिरचत ेत ररीत यतअर्ुrतिे गररेत यत
ांृत्युतहुई।
122. अbःतउपरोक्तरrुेररति डत्रशि्रम रते ि bर, 1973त यतिरररत176 (1) ( )त ेत
अियrते स्थिbतांृb तअर्ुrतिे गररेतिपbरतिेच रीतिे गररेत यतांृत्युत ेत ररीत यत
र्र ात र ुचर यत रतिrष्कर्षुतअ ि bति रतर्रbरत ।
123. ्रश रीतांेंत्रशििशुb/्रशरप्ततेियतिस्तरचेर्, इलेक्ट्रॉिr तिस्तरचेर्, इलेक्ट्ररिr त
रडुिडस्क, ए तेयपय ू,तपेrडररईचतbथरतेांस्ततअििलेखत(आिेशतपिि रए , पिरारर,
शचतपरयक्षीतरर रिडिंगतांेांोरयत रडुतएच तअन्यतअ्रशििशुbतिस्तरचेर्)तउक्तत्रशिbचेिrत
ेतिरगतांरrेतर्रए गे।“
8. During pendency of the enquiry, Vijay Kumar Sisodia preferred a Writ
Petition No.33870/2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India submitting
that he is not challenging order, but aggrieved with the illegal inaction on the
application made by the petitioner before the respondents as well as by undue
protection to the actual wrongdoer involved in the death of Ajay Singare and also
the inaction of the officials with regard to available CCTV Footage reflects the
atrocious conduct against the deceased and also not conducting the spot
inspection/visit by the enquiry officer.
9. After submissions of the euquiry report, Vijay Kumar Sisodia approached
this Court through WP No.27409/2026 and Avinash approached before this Court
through MCRC No.33769/2026 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
quashment of the order dated 29.06.2026 as well as subsequent proceedings passed
in JMCR No.2948/2022 by JMFC, Indore.
10. Counsel for the petitioners have referred A.R. Khan vs. National
Human Rights Commission; 2011 Supreme (M.P.) 1183, Shuishil Kumar Nayak
vs. state of Odisha; 2017 Supreme (Ori) 754, Sheetoshna Pugareya vs,. State of
M.P. (MCRC No.16708/2015), Ram Sharan Prajapati vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (WP No.8615/2013 order dated 20.08.2018 (Gwalior), Dr. Dilip Kumar
Deka and Anr. Vs. State of Asam 1196 (7) Supreme 143 and the State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Mohammad Naim, MANU/SC/0062/1963 (SC).
11. Challenge to the order dated 29.06.2026 in MJCR No.2948/2022 is
based on para no.104 to 112 and 118 of the report submitting that the findings are
in violation of Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (supra), Mohammad Naim (supra) and K A
Judicial Officers vs. K A Judicial Officers MANU/SC/0092/2001).
12. Before proceeding further, the development regarding the nature of
enquiry as contemplated by Section 176 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is being discussed.
13. Before the Amendment Act 46 of 1973 was introduced, S.176 (1) of the
Code stood, thus:
"176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death. - (1) When the case is
of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of subsection (3) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
section 174, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall,
and in any other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 174, any
Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death
either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police
officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it
which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence."
14. Here, we need to notice that sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the code
was amended by Amendment Act 46 of 1983 by which the words "when any
person dies while in the custody of the police" were inserted as opening words of
sub-section (1). Thus, prior to 25.12.1983, under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the inquiry by an Executive Magistrate into the cause of death was not
extended to the death of a person while in the custody of the plice. After the
Amendment Act 46 of 1983, the inquiry by an Executive Magistrate into the cause
of death of a person while in the custody of the police was also covered.
15. However, the legislature once again amended sub-section (1) of Section
176 of the Code by Amendment Act 25 of 2005 by which, the opening words
"when any person dies while in the custody of the police" were omitted. Thus, as
of now, an inquiry by an Executive Magistrate into the cause of death as provided
under Section 176 (1) of the Code does not extend to the death of a person while in
custody of the police. While so amending sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
Code by the same Amendment Act 25 of 2005, the legislature introduced a new
sub-section, that is, (1A) to Section 176 of the Code which reads as follows:
"176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.
(1) .. .. .. .. .. ..
(1A) Where,.. .. .. ..
(a) any person dies or disappears, or ..
(b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman,
while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in
any other custody authorized by the Magistrate or the Court,
under this Code in addition to the enquiry or investigation held
by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Judicial Magistrate
or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within
whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.
16. Thus, post Amendment Act 25 of 2005, in respect of an inquiry into the
cause of the death or disappearance of a person or rape while such person or
woman was in custody of the police or in any other custody authorized by the
Magistrate or court, the power has now been conferred upon the Judicial
Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local
jurisdiction the offence has been committed.
17. Sub-section (5) of Section 176 of the Code was also amended by the
same amendment. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 176 of the Code reads as
follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death . –
(1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(2) The Magistrate holding such inquiry shall record the evidence
taken by him in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter
prescribed according to the circumstances of the case.
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an
examination of the dead body of any person who has been already
interred, in order to discover the causes of his death, the Magistrate
may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.
(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate
shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased
whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to
remain present at the inquiry.
(5) The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate or
Executive Magistrate or police officer holding an inquiry or
investigation, as the case may be, under subsection (1A) shall, within
twenty-four hours of the death of a person, forward the body with a
view to its being examined to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other
qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State
Government, unless it is not possible to do so for reasons to be
recorded in writing.
Explanation – In this section, the expression “relative” means parents,
children, brothers, sisters and spouse."
18. Now, a comparison of the language used in sub-section (1) and sub-
section (1A) of Section 176 of the Code would go to show that so far as Section
176 (1) of the Code is concerned, the inquiry is confined only to the cause of the
death. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate cannot travel beyond the cause of death
to give any other finding on the disputed facts.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
19. But, in sub-section (1A) a different language has been consciously used
by the legislature. Here the legislature has not confined the inquiry only into the
cause of the death or cause for the disappearance or cause for rape while in custody
of the police. The qualifying words like inquiry" into the cause of the death" as it is
found in sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the Code have been consciously omitted
in sub-section (1A) of Section 176 of the Code thereby indicating that the inquiry
by a Judicial Magistrate under sub-section (1A) is not confined only to the cause of
death or cause for the the disappearance or cause for rape. Thus, this inquiry has
got a wider scope. As per sub-section (2) of Section 176 of the Code, the
Magistrates, both the Executive Magistrate as well as the Judicial Magistrates /
Metropolitan Magistrates, shall record evidence on oath. Sub-section (5) of section
176 of the Code is more elaborate which states that the Judicial Magistrates /
Metropolitan Magistrates or the Executive Magistrates or Police Officers holding
an inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, under sub-section (1A) shall,
within twenty-four hours of such death, forward the bdoy for postmortem.
20. As it has been explicitly stated in sub-section (1A) , the inquiry by a
Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate shall be in addition to the inquiry or
investigation conducted by the police. It needs to be mentioned that an inquiry by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
an Executive Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the Code is either
instead of or in addition to the investigation by the police. Therefore, the inquiry
held by a Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate shall not be a bar for the
police to investigate simultaneously. Since an inquiry held by a Judicial
Magistrate, though has got a wider scope than an inquiry held by an Executive
Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 176 of Cr.P.C., such judicial inquiry
cannot be equated to an investigation done by the police in respect of the crime.
The inquiry by the Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate may not be a full-
fledged one in all respects. For example, he can not go to various places to recover
the material objects involved / connected to the crime or the criminal. No where, it
is stated in the Code, that simply because the Judicial Magistrate is holding an
inquiry under sub-section (1A) of Section 176 of the Code, the police shall stop
investigating the matter. It is needless to point out that after holding inquest under
sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the Code, in respect of the cause of death , the
Executive Magistrate shall submit a report only to the police. The police without
stopping the investigation or awaiting for the report of the Metropolitan Magistrate
or Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, shall simultaneously conduct
investigation to unearth the truth and to bring to book the real perpetrators of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
crime. Under sub-section (1A) of Section 176, inquiry held by the Judicial
Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate is in addition to the investigation held by
the police and not in substitution of the police investigation. Neither the
investigation made by the police shall preclude a Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan
Magistrate from holding an inquiry under sub-section (1A) of Section 176 nor such
inquiry by Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate shall preclude the police
from investigating the case. In this regard, I may refer to Chapter XII of the Code.
If any case is registered under Section 154 in Chapter XII of the Code presently
under Section 173 in Chapter XIII of BNSS, 2023, it should reach the logical end
with the filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code/ under Section 193 of
BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is no provision in the Code
of 1973/Sanhita, 2023 enabling the police to drop the investigation without taking
the same to the logical end. Even in a case where the investigating officer finds
that either there was no offence committed or for any other reason, no further
action could be taken against any individual, he is required to file a negative final
report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan Magistrate and it
is for the said Magistrate to consider as to whether to take cognizance from out of
materials available or to order for further investigation; or to accept the negative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
report. Therefore, if there is any death or disappearance or rape, while in police
custody, and if it is an offence [as per the expression used in sub-section (1A)] the
investigation shall be conducted by the police without being hindered in any
manner by the inquiry held by the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate,
as the case may be, and the investigating officer on completing the investigation,
shall submit a final report to the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, 1973/ 193 of BNSS, 2023.
21. As I have already pointed out, the inquiry held by the Judicial
Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate, cannot be , at any stretch of imagination
equated to an investigation by the police. During investigation, the police officer
shall enjoy enormous powers and skill to throughly investigate the matter and he
has got lot of tools also to investigate; whereas the Judicial Magistrate or
Metropolitan Magistrate may not have such tools. In this regard, we may refer to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal
Saheb vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 . In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was concerned with the inquiries under subsections (1) and (2) of Section
174 of the Code. In para 14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
having analyzed the power of the police to investigate into a crime vis a vis the
power of the Executive Magistrate to hold inquest, held as follows:-
"14. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and
simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An investigation under
Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of
the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether
in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or
caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or
instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is
for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the
case are summoned and examined under Section 175. The details of
the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report.
The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the
ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice
nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention
all these details."
22. Again in para 15 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
"15. ........After noticing the language used in Section 174 Cr.P.C. and
earlier decisions of this Court it was ruled that the High Court was
clearly in error in observing as aforesaid or drawing any inference
against the prosecution. Thus, it is well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very
limited, viz., to ascertain as to whether a person has committed suicide
or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by
an accident or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. There is
absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR,
names of the accused or the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-
witness…….”.
23. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Tarachand v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh [W.P.No.1491 of 2009 order dated 07.07.2011] has compared
S.176 (1A) with Section 174 of the Code and has taken the view that a report
submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by holding an inquiry under
Section 176(1A) of the Code cannot be construed to be a full fledged inquiry in
respect of the entire occurrence.
24. The amendment to sub-section (1) of Section 176 and introduction of
sub-section (1A) was made on the recommendations of the "National Police
Commission" in its 4th Report. And, Hon'ble Justice Malimath, in his report, has
very categorically stated that an inquiry to be held by a Magistrate shall not be
equated to an investigation by the police.
25. From the above reports, which are the foundation for the amendment of
sub-section (1) of Section 176 and introduction of subsection (1A) of Section 176
of the Code, the conclusion that an inquiry held by a Judicial Magistrate or
Metropolitan Magistrate is a judicial inquiry in character and the same does not
either form part of the investigation or part-take the character of investigation is
fortified.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
25. In Ramsharan Prajapati (supra), the order dated 28.08.2018 in WP
No.8615/2013, also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recognized the power
of naming the person who according to the Judicial Magistrate may be responsible
for custodial death alongwith “cause of death”. Relevant para no.7.2 to 7.5 are
being reproduced below:-
7.2 A close scrutiny of the terminology used in 176 and 176(1-
A) reveals that Sub-Section (1) confers power on Executive
Magistrate to conduct inquiry into the cause of death when
death occurs in circumstances as contemplated by Sec 174(3)
(i) or (ii) Cr.P.C.
7.3 While Sub-section (1-A) of Sec 176 Cr.P.C. confers power
for conducting an inquiry into the death or disappearance of any
person while being in police custody inter-alia upon Judicial
Magistrate.
7.4 The marked difference between Sub-section (1) and Sub-
section (1-A) of Sec 176 Cr.P.C. is that the expression “inquiry
into the cause of death” found in Sub-section (1) is
conspicuously missing in Sub section (1-A). This clearly
reflects the intention of Legislature of conferring wider power
of inquiry upon the Judicial Magistrate by not restricting the
field of inquiry merely to the “cause of death”, but also two
other ancillary aspects.
7.5 In view of the aforesaid marked difference, the Judicial
Magistrate while conducting an inquiry u/S 176(1-A) can
submit a report not only disclosing the cause of death, but also
naming the persons who according to the Judicial Magistrate
may be responsible for custodial death.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
27. In light of the above, t he magisterial enquiry should cover the following
aspects.
a) The circumstances of death
b) The manner and sequence of incidents leading to death
c) The cause of death
d) Any person found responsible for the death, or suspicion of foul
play that emerges during the enquiry.
e) Act of commission/omission on the part of public servants that
contributed to the death
f) Adequacy of medical treatment provided to the deceased.
28. The enquiry magistrate should examine and verify the following records.
a) Inquest Report
b) Post Mortem Report: It is seen that the Enquiry Officer does not
analyze the Post Mortem report; no attempt is made to draw any
inference about the genuineness or otherwise of the encounter. PM
report should be thoroughly analyzed; if necessary, help of State
FSL should be taken.
c) Viscera Analysis Report
d) Histopathological Examination Report
e) Final cause of death
f) MLC report/Initial Health Screening Report of the prisoner
g) Medical treatment records
h) Inquiry/Investigation report of the police
i) FIR/General Diary (GD) entries/any other relevant police records.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
j) Ballistic examination reports of weapon and cartridges, if any,
alleged to be used in the incident by the deceased.
k) Forensic examination report of ‘hand wash’ of the deceased.
l) The finger print expert report on finger print impression available
on weapon alleged to have been used by the deceased.
29. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajaram Dangi vs. State of MP
[2026:MPHC-IND;21865] , has considered the contention of the petitioner that the
power exercisable by a Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Cr.P.C , 1973 is
not strictly confined merely to ascertaining the physiological or medical cause of
death. The legislative mandate allows the Magistrate to conduct a comprehensive
and holistic enquiry. The Magistrate is fully empowered to examine the complete
sequence of events, document the specific circumstances under which the custodial
incident took place, and explicitly name the accused persons whose actions or
omissions culminated in the fatality.
30. In light of the above legal position and the conclusion recorded in para
nos.120 to 123 of the report as reproduced above in para no.7 of this order, this
Court does not find any illegality to interfere with in the impugned report under
challenge. Accordingly, WP No.27409/2026 and MCRC No.33769/2026 are
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
31. So far as WP No.33870/2024 is concerned, on requisition of Judicial
Magistrate conducting the enquiry it was intimated that in the night of 17.09.2022
due to fault in the transformer, electric equipments including the system installed at
the Police Station Maanpur got affected and also intimated that the CCTV Footage
from the period of 02/09/2022 to 03/09/2022 could not be made available to the
JMFC through Letter No.126/2024 dated 03.04.2026 by the Police Station,
Maanpur, Indore.
32. The above letter dated 03.04.026 of Police Station, Maanpur, Indore
raises serious concern. Despite the directions cum guidelines in the cases of D.K
Basu vs. State of West Bengal; 1997 1 SCC 416, Joginder Kumar vs. State of
U.P.: (1994) 4 SCC 260, Nilabati Behera @ lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa and
Ors: AIR 1993 SC 1960, P. Jeyaraj J Bennix vs. Tamil Nadu, Hansura Bai vs.
State of M.P. 2025 INSC 711, Lehrabai Tamre vs. State of Chhatisgarh;2026
INSC 840 and Toufeeq Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat order dated 12.08.2026 in
SLP(Cri.)1532/2026 by Apex Court custodial violence including custodial death
cases are not dealt with sincerity. Despite the legal position that there is no
impediment that the inquiry held by a Judicial Magistrate / Metropolitan
Magistrate shall not be a bar for the police to investigate simultaneously, they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
cause delay in investigating the matter in the name of pendency of Judicial Enquiry
by Judicial Magistrate and till that time, they permit the disappearance of vital
evidence and during the course of inquiry conducted by Judicial Magistrate is
faced by non-cooperation of the responsible authorities to provide co-operation as
well as to investigate the matter. In this case also, there was no bar to conduct the
investigation by the police authorities. The law is clear that the judicial enquiry is
not a substitute of investigation. There was no bar to conduct investigation by the
police and at least to secure the evidence in the form of CCTV Footage by the
police.
33. This indicates that they are bound by brotherhood and they dare not to
follow the directions-cum-guidelines even issued by Apex Court and kith and kin
of the victims of custodial violence are bound to approach here and there and they
are not provided even compensation without approaching the Constitutional
Courts.
34. So far as the pen drive is concerned, the history of the media file reflects
that the same was modified on 06.09.2022. Accordingly, there cannot be any
direction to the Judicial Magistrate to take the CCTV Footage into consideration as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24087
WP No.27409/2026 and Others
sought in the Writ Petition No.33870/2024. Accordingly, WP No.33870/2024 also
stands dismissed.
35. Record of the trial Court if any be remitted back immediately.
36. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected matters.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 25-08-2026
12:03:08