Samrath Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3567 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

Gwalior, Dated : 23.07.2021

Shri S.L.Dhakad, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General

for the State.

The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is being filed seeking following relief:-

"7-1 ;gfd vkjksihx.k fjLiksMsUV dzekad 4 ,oa 5 ds f[kykQ vigj.k ,oa ywV rFkk ekjus dh /kkSal vkfn laca/kh vkosnu ds vk/kkj vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) djk;s tkus gsrq funsZf'k fd;k tkosA 7-2 ;gfd] fiVh'kuj dh f'kdk;r iqfyl Fkkuk HkkSarh ftyk f'koiqjh ls fiVh'kuj ds {ks=h; lacaf/kr Fkkuk djSjk] ftyk f'koiqjh esa LFkkukarfjr ,oa fHktokus ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;k tkosA 7-3 ;gfd] iqfyl Fkkuk HkkSrh ftyk f'koiqjh esa inLFk iz/kku vkj{kd gjn;ky tks'kh }kjk uxj fujh{kd dks xqejkg djus ,oa 25 o"kZ ls ,d gh Fkkus esa inLFk gksus ls vU; Fkkus esa LFkkukarfjr fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;

tk;sA 7-4 ;gfd] fiVh'kuj dks vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s] fiVh'kuj dks fnyk;h tkosA**

The petitioner has submitted the grounds, for which the petition

is being filed, which are as follows:-

**;gfd] v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k if=dk ,oa rF;ksa

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

,oa rF;ksa ds foijhr tkdj izpfyr dk;Zokgh fof/k fu;eksa ,oa fla)karksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ;gfd] izkFkhZ dks 'kknh ds le; ls izrkfMr dj jgs vkjksih 'kEHkw n;ky ikBd] gky fuoklh <yk] Fkkuk HkkSrh ,oa lqjsUnz ikBd iq= Jh dUgS;kyky jtd] fuoklh cktuk ixjk] Fkkuk HkkSarh ds esjh ifRu ls voS/k laca/k gksus ls izkFkhZ dks tku ls ekjus dh /kkSal nhA ;gfd fnukad 19-08- 2020 dks esjh ifRu ds }kjk eq> ls ikfjokfjd fookn nsdj lk;Wdky 05 cts] mDr yksxksa us esjh ,oa esjh ekrkth dh vR;Ur ekjihV dh] ftlesa esjs firk ds }kjk lacaf/kr Fkkus esa lwpuk nhA ;gfd mDr vkjksihx.k ,oa esjh ifRu }kjk uxnh 80][email protected]& :i;s] 12][email protected]& :i;s dk u;k eksckbZy] 2 rkSys dk lksus dk gkj ,oa 2 rkSys lksus dh >qedh] dkuksa ds Qwy ,oa ,d eaxylw= rFkk ,d tksMh ik;y 500 xzke fcfN;k 6 rkSyk] dejisVh 250 xzke] xqPNk 150 xzke] NksVh ik;y 250 xzke bl rjg ls dqy 1-5 fdyksxzke pkWanh ,oa 4 rkSys lksus dh oLrqvksa dks ywVdj esjh iRuh dk vigj.k dj ?kVuk dks vatke fn;kA ;gfd] fiVh'kuj dks tkudkjh izkIr gksus ls fd lqjsUnz jtd iq= Jh dUgS;k jtd] fuoklh cktuk ijxuk Fkuk HkkSrh esa esjh iRuh dk vigj.k dj lEiw.kZ ywV dk lkeku fy;s gq, lqjsUnz ikBd ds dgs vuqlkj f'koiqjh ,oa djSjk esa edku ysdj fNis gq, gS] ftldh lwpuk nsus ds mijkar iqfyl Fkkuk }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA ;gfd] iqfyl Fkkuk HkkSrh }kjk fiVh'kuj dh f'kdk;r dks fiVh'kuj ds lacaf/kr Fkkuk {ks= djSjk esa ugha Hkstk x;k] Lo;a gh iqfyl Fkkuk HkkSrh dks tkWap gsrq vkns'k ikfjr fd;k] tkWap ds }kjk lEiw.kZ vkjksihx.k dks fiVh'kuj ds le{k fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k ,oa fiVh'kuj ds ifjokj lfgr

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

O;ku fy;s x;s rFkk esjh iRuh ds ekrk&firk ,oa HkkbZ ds O;ku fy;s x;s rFkk Fkkuk HkkSrh ds iz/kku vkj{kd dh gjn;ky tks'kh] tks iz/kku vkj{kd ds in ij 25 o"kksZa ls mlh Fkkus esa inLFk gksus rFkk jsat vkfn dk O;olk; djus ds dkj.k gjn;ky tks'kh }kjk uxj fujh{kd dks xqejkg dj vkjksihx.k ls futh LokFkksZa dh iwfrZ dj NksM fn;k] tcfd vkjksihx.k }kjk fiVh'kuj ds le{k lEiw.kZ ywV dk lkeku Hkh Lohdkj fd;k vkSj esjh iRuh dks ncko esa ysdj lqjsUnz jtd ,oa 'kEHkwn;ky ikBd ds lkFk vkuk crk;k x;k] tcfd mDr lacaf/kr izdj.k dks lacaf/kr {ks=kf/kdkj Fkkuk esa ugha Hkstk x;k vkSj ,sudsuizdkjs.k dh dk;Zokgh dj vkjksihx.k dks NksM fn;k x;kA ;gfd] mDr vkjksihx.k ,oa Fkkuk HkkSrh dh tkWap ls fiVh'kuj larq"V ugha gS D;ksafd vkjksihx.k dk {ks=h; fuokl gSA fiVh'kuj ds ifjokj ds lkFk dksbZ lafnX/k ?kVuk ?kfVr gks ldrh gS] blfy, fiVh'kuj dks Fkkuk HkkSrh esa vkosnu ds vuqla/kku djkus esa ijs'kkuh dk lkeuk djuk iM jgk gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, Fkkuk djSjk esa vius vkosnu dh tkWap djkuk U;k;laxr le>rk gwWaA ;gfd] vkjksihx.k fjLiksMs.V dzekad 4 ,oa 5 ds f[kykQ dksbZ vijk/k iathc/n ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj uk gh dk;Zokgh ls voxr djk;k tk jgk gSA**

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has contended

that no such relief can be granted by this Court in view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The

petitioner is having remedy under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to

approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

grievances.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao

Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016)

6 SCC 277 has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sakri Vasu v. State of UP reported in (2008) 2

SCC 409 and has held as under:-

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 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 the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C 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 the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

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 his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 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 view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.11955/2021 (Samrath Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."

The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court recently in the case of M. Subramaniyam and Others Vs. S.

Janki and Others in Cr.Appeal No.102/2011.

Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid cases, the remedy available to the petitioners is

before concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, finding no substance in the petition, it is hereby

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerning

Magistrate by way of filing application u/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, if so

advised.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made

clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for

practical purposes in respect of this order.

                                                   (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                   Judge
         ANAND KUMAR
         2021.07.24
         10:52:17 +05'30'