Rajesh Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 937 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 937 MP
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                       1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         M.Cr.C.No.51746/2020
                    (Rajesh Mishra Vs. State of M.P. )

Gwalior, Dated:-22.3.2021
      Shri Rajendra Singh Dhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Ms.      Kalpana    Parmar,     learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the

respondent/State.

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

seeking following relief :-

"It is therefore humbly prayed that present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and respondents may kindly be directed to submit the status report of Registration of Unidentified dead body (UD) No.02/2020 register Police Station Basai, District Datia MP or conduction investigation within stipulated time in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the

fact that the complaints have been made to the concerning Station

House Officer, Police Station Basai, District Datia and also the

Superintendent of Police, District Datia but no action has been taken

by the respondents/authority. Counsel for the petitioner prays for

direction to submit the status report of Registration of Unidentified

dead body (UD) No.02/2020 register Police Station Basai, District

Datia MP or conduction investigation within stipulated time.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the

application stating that no such relief can be granted to the petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.51746/2020 (Rajesh Mishra Vs. State of M.P. )

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sakiri Basu Vs. State of U.P and Others reported in

AIR 2008 SC 907 and in case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe

Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016

(6) SCC 277 and he further contended that the petitioner is having

alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching under Section 156

(3) of Cr.P.C. before the concerning authority for redressing his

grievance and no relief can be granted in this petition under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. He has prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From perusal of the record, it is seen that the complaints were

made by the petitioner to the concerning authority, but no action has

been taken by the respondents/authority and no such relief has been

granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Basu

(Supra) considering the judgment passed in the case of Sudhir

Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), has held that :

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 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 the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.51746/2020 (Rajesh Mishra Vs. State of M.P. )

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 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 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) 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."

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 200 Cr.P.C.

or 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 private complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. or

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.51746/2020 (Rajesh Mishra Vs. State of M.P. )

application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C., if so advised raising all the grievance

pertaining to the fact that partial and unfair investigation being carried

out by the police authorities and if such an application is filed within

15 days from today, the concerning Magistrate is directed to look into