Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 527 (MP)

Ashutosh v. State of M. P.

2022-04-01

NANDITA DUBEY

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :- (i) direct the respondent police authorities mentioned to take stringent action against the accused persons respondents No.5 to 13 by deciding the complaint against the accused person in concerning police station. Police Choowki Hata P.S. Hanumana, Tehsil and district Rewa (M.P.) where offence should be registered against the accused persons/respondents No.5 to 13 in accordance with law. (ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the criminal trial case with FIR against the petitioner pending in Crime No.0124/2020 of P.S. Hanumana in Court of JMFC, Hanuman, district Rewa (M.P.); (iii) To call record of this case for perusal and action in accordance with law (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may also be granted. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that private respondents No. 5 to 13 have abused and threatened and also done marpeet with the petitioner and his family members and also trespassed the field of the petitioner and also destroyed the safety tank. In this regard, petitioner made a complaint in the concerned police station for registering a case against the private respondents but the police registered crime against petitioner and his family members on the complaint of respondent No.14, but no action has been taken against respondents No.5 to 13. He has also made a complaint to the S.P. also, but no action has been taken against them till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent police authorities may be directed to register a case against the private respondents No.5 to 13 and also to quash the FIR No.124/2020, registered against him at P.S. Hanumana, district Hanumana. 3. In Sudhir Bhasakr Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwnat Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :- "2. 3. In Sudhir Bhasakr Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwnat Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :- "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra), that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of alternate his remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 4. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of alternate his remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 4. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the police is not taking any action on his complaint nor registering any case against respondents No.5 to 13 and also to quash the FIR registered against him, hence in view of the settled position of law, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C. 5. As far as the prayer of petitioner for quashment of FIR and the criminal trial is concerned, no details of the same has been mentioned in the petition. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to avail the appropriate legal remedy in this regard. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of.