Satyam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2962 MP

                                           1

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                WP No.4111/2021
                      (Satyam Singh vs. State of M.P. and others)

JABALPUR DATED : 05.07.2021

      Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondents.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to decide the representation.

3. The record reflects that against the petitioner FIR has been registered in the Police Station, Beohari on 09.02.2019 for offence under Section 294, 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner aggrieved with the registration of the FIR had submitted the representation which was considered and report was called but the petitioner seems to be dissatisfied with the same, therefore, he has filed the fresh representation.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier representation has not been properly considered and a fresh representation has been filed, therefore, a direction be issued to decide the representation.

5. As against this, the submission of learned Government Advocate for the State is that the matter is at the investigation stage and the petitioner has no right to approach this Court by way of petition seeking any direction relating to investigation in the garb of prayer for deciding the representation.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that in the fresh representation the petitioner has raised a grievance about registration of FIR against him. The earlier representation in this regard has already been considered. That apart, in view of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of 2016 (6) SCC 277 (Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others) and 2008 (2) SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and others), remedy of writ as against improper investigation is not available and if the petitioner has any grievance in this regard, he can approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case is made out to issue any direction to decide the representation. Hence, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.07.08 16:48:38 +05'30'