Shankarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7447 MP

                                           1




             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                        Writ Petition No.24272 of 2021
                       (Shankarlal Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Jabalpur, Dated : 16.11.2021
      Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri     Ankit     Agrawal,       learned      Govt.     Advocate           for   the

respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-

"(i) Appropriate writ be issued for commanding respondent No.2 to decide the pending written complaint/representation dated 18/10/2021 expeditiously as per law.

(ii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

It is submitted that award dated 12.04.2021 was passed with respect

to Khasra No.485/1/Kha situated at Village Jeet Nagar, Maihar, District

Satna. At serial No.14 name of the father of the petitioner and his paternal

uncle were reflected. As the award was passed in favour of a dead person,

therefore, the writ petition being W.P. No.16744/2021 was filed which is

pending consideration wherein the interim relief dated 14.09.2021 was

granted by this Court. This goes to show that the property in question is

an ancestral property.

A second appeal being S.A.No.1267/2020 is also pending before

this Court with respect to the same property and interim relief was granted

on 17.02.2021 is still in operation. The respondent No.4 has created a loss

and damaged the crops and pipeline through respondent Nos. 2 and 3,

thus causing huge loss to the petitioner for which a complaint was made

to the respondents/Authorities which is pending consideration. The

respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and their associates have rolled over and plied

his tractor over the agricultural field of the petitioner on 13.10.2021, but

despite compliant being made with respect to the aforesaid to the

authorities, no action has been taken, therefore, the present petition has

been filed.

Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and

submitted that a second appeal and a writ petition is already pending

consideration before this Court with respect to the same property,

therefore, the petitioner may file appropriate application seeking redressal

of his grievances in the aforesaid pending cases. It is argued that the

petitioner is having remedy before the concerning Courts by filing an

application under Section 156 (3) and Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as has been

considered and decided by 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 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. reported

in (2008) 2 SCC 409. Directing for taking action against the

respondents/authorities for registration of an FIR is not warranted,

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

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

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that second appeal and a

writ petition is pending consideration with respect to the same property

and the petitioner is having a remedy of filing a proper application in the

aforesaid appeals, in case there is any violation of interim relief granted

by this Court. Direction for registration of an FIR is unwarranted in the

facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, the petitioner is

having a remedy to approach the concerning Magistrate for redressal of

his grievances by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3)

or Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the

Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra) and

Sakri Vasu (supra) wherein the Supreme Court 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 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 they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."

In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

AM.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.11.19 13:09:13 +05'30'