Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Murarka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2021
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 427 of 2018
Mukesh Murarka S/o Late Shri Nathmal Murarka, Aged About 45
Years R/o Main Road C/o Murarka Petrol Pump, Power House Road
Korba , Police Station Kotwali Korba Tahsil And District Korba
Chhattisgarh.,
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.,
2. Superintendent Of Police , Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
3. Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Korba District Korba
Chhattisgarh.,
4. Rajesh Murarka S/o Late Nathmal Murarka Aged About 52 Years R/o
Near Railway Crossing Main Road Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, Advocate.
For State/Res. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vinod Tekam, P. L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
28.07.2021
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for direction the respondents No.2 and 3 to
register offence against respondent No. 4.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the
petitioner is younger brother of respondent No.4. The dispute is
with regard to the ancestral property between brothers. The
respondent No.4 has misbehaved with mother Rampyari
Murarka who is aged about 80 years and he made complaint on
31.03.2018 and 04.04.2018 but police has not taken any action
against respondent No.4.
3. On above factual matrix, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition and prays for following relief(s):-
(10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ
petition and be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to
register the cognizance offence against the respondent No.4
according to the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others,
2014(2)SCC1.
(10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
entire records.
(10.3) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together
with cost of the petition.
4. From perusal of reliefs sought, it is crystal clear that FIR should
be registered against respondent No. 4- Rajesh Murarka.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others 1, has examined the issue holding that
the petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has again considered and
decided the issue in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage 2 and M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S.
Janaki & another 3.
6. Considering the facts and materials on record and in light of the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above
referred judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having
jurisdiction over the place of offence and in-turn Magistrate will
follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the
Cr.P.C.
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409
2 (2016) 6 SCC 277
3 (2020) 16 SCC 728
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal
offence or not.
8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with
the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-d/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
parul
