Jabalpur High Court – Photo: Social Media Expansion In the case related to the alleged encounter of Bhagwan Singh Lodhi in Surkhi police station area of ​​Sagar district, the Jabalpur single bench has directed that the OIC of the case will remain present if the investigation report is not received. The single bench has scheduled the next hearing of the case on 03 June. It is notable that this case was filed on behalf of Than Singh Lodhi, father of deceased Bhagwan Singh Lodhi. In the filed case, it is alleged that in village Chaturbhata under Surkhi police station of Sagar district, when the police reached to serve the warrant issued by the Deori court, the police caught Bhagwan Singh Lodhi and shot him thrice in the left side of the chest with the service revolver 03 murdered on October 2006. By giving the incident the form of an encounter, an attempt was made to hush up the said incident. According to the PM report of the deceased Bhagwan Singh Lodhi in the incident, it has been clearly mentioned that the bullet was fired in the chest. After investigating the petition from an independent agency, the then police personnel Puran Lal Nagayach, Ramgopal Shukla and the then police captain Mohd. Relief has been sought to register a case of murder against Shahid Avsar and to provide appropriate compensation to the dependents of the deceased. In the case, the court had issued notice to the non-applicants on November 6 2006 and directed them to submit their reply, on which the non-applicants raised the issue in the case. No reply was given to the issues, rather the reply was filed by the non-applicants citing magisterial enquiry. On the last hearing of the case, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the case is pending for years. Till date, the magisterial inquiry has not been presented before the court by the non-applicants, nor has the case of murder been registered against the guilty police officers till date. It was argued that the matter cannot become infructuous after the lapse of 414 years. There is no fixed time limit in law for registering offenses against offenders and neither can the non-applicant argue that 233 Due to lapse of years, the case has become infructuous. On this, the court had directed to present the magisterial inquiry report. The court gave directions on further hearing in the matter. Advocate Rameshwar P Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner. ,