Mohammad Khalil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6655 MP

                                   1                              WP-21584-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-21584-2021
          (MOHAMMAD KHALIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 22-10-2021
      Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Gulsher

Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/ State.

Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned Sr. Counsel was requested in the forenoon to assist the Court.

This Court would like to place its appreciation on record for the services rendered by Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Gulsher Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.

After hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that petitioner has clubbed different cause of actions in one writ petition. He has a grievance that though petitioner has succeeded in a civil suit and on the basis of judgment and decree passed in said Civil Suit, petitioner is in possession of immovable property, yet respondents herein, in collusion with revenue and police officials, are trying to disturb their possession. Second grievance is

that petitioner had approached the authority of police for lodging FIR but when he was not successful, he invoked the jurisdiction of learned J.M.F.C. by filing various applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to issue a direction to the police authorities to register FIR and investigate the matter but there also he could not succeed and consequent revision filed by him also met with fate of failure. The third cause of action is that the respondents had filed a W.P.No. 7871/2015 in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted him relief of status quo with respect to possession of the property in question but his grievance is that even this order dated 29.05.2015 passed in W.P.No. 7871/2015 is flouted.

After hearing learned Sr. Counsel, it is evident that petitioner is not remediless. He has remedy to file a civil suit seeking injunction against those who are trying to interfere in his possession. He has a remedy to file a petition 2 WP-21584-2021 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or any other appropriate application challenging the orders of the competent Courts dismissing his application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and revision originating therefrom. Petitioner also has a remedy to file contempt petition for violation of order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, when petitioner has

alternative, effective and efficacious remedy available to him, then instead of entertaining this petition which involves several disputed facts, which admittedly cannot be adjudicated in the summary writ jurisdiction of this Court, it would be in the interest of litigants and also in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedies available to him before the appropriate forums and in above terms, this petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

Vikram

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH

VIKRAM DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5e3bf9b63759d9c0513833048a47 283c8f66732878c5d090341a0b75ce6d1e91,

SINGH pseudonym=0AEDD33AA7448729F1E72B9 03F78F04027BCFA24, serialNumber=FDD89E77C40EC11A8EC3AA ADEF0E2E7DAFEC93C010D5EFB1CD4A15D 8A674147A, cn=VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2021.10.23 16:18:28 +05'30'