Dharmendra Mahor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5925 MP

                            1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC-17692-2022
         Dharmendra Mahor Vs. State of MP and others

Gwalior, Dated : 22.04.2022

      Shri Rajesh Goswami, Counsel for the applicant.

      Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Counsel for the State.

      The objection raised by the office is ignored.

      This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed

seeking following relief:-

                ^^vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd] vkosnd dk
       vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkjksihx.k ds fo:) lqlaxr
       /kkjkvks esa eqdnek ntZ dj mfpr oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh djus gsrq
       iqfyl v/kh{kd o Fkkuk izHkkjh dks funsZf'kr djsA^^

2.    It is submitted by the counsel for the State that in the light of

the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri

Vasu vs. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, Aleque

Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in

(2007) 6 SCC 171, Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and

others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal No.247/2016 (Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of

M.P. & Ors.), this application is not maintainable.

3.    The moot question for consideration is that :-

                  "Whether an application under Section 482
            of Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR is tenable or
            not?"

4.    The Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre

(supra) has held as under:-
                    2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
           MCRC-17692-2022
Dharmendra Mahor Vs. State of MP and others

          "41. It is altogether a different matter that
   the High Court in exercise of its power under
   Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
   always issue appropriate directions at the instance
   of an aggrieved person if the High Court is
   convinced that the power of investigation has
   been exercised by an investigating officer mala
   fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of
   the rare case where a clear case of abuse of power
   and noncompliance with the provisions falling
   under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out
   requiring the interference of the High Court. But
   even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct
   the police as to how the investigation is to be
   conducted but can always insist for the observance
   of process as provided for in the Code.
          42. Even in cases where no action is
   taken by the police on the information given to
   them, the informant's remedy lies under Sections
   190, 200 CrPC, but a writ petition in such a case is
   not to be entertained. This Court in Gangadhar
   Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra held:
   (SCC pp. 774-75, para 13)
          "13. When the information is laid with the
   police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the
   complainant is given power under Section 190
   read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the
   complaint before the Magistrate having
   jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and
   the Magistrate is required to enquire into the
   complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code.
   In case the Magistrate after recording evidence
   finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process
   to the accused, he is empowered to direct the
   police concerned to investigate into offence under
   Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If
   he finds that the complaint does not disclose any
   offence to take further action, he is empowered to
   dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the
   Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence
   recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is
   empowered to take cognizance of the offence and
   would issue process to the accused. These aspects
                                      3
                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             MCRC-17692-2022
                  Dharmendra Mahor Vs. State of MP and others

                      have been highlighted by this Court in All India
                      Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union
                      (Regd.) v. Union of India. It was specifically
                      observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to
                      be entertained."

         5.    The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta

         Bhadauria (supra) has held as under:-

                            "(1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police
                     to perform its statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C can be
                     denied to the informant /victim for non-availing of
                     alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190 and
                     200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated
                     in decision of Apex Court in the the case of
                     Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade
                     Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come
                     to rescue of the informant / victim.
                            (2) The verdict of Apex Court in the
                     case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P.
                     & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not
                     pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of
                     mandamus for compelling the police to perform
                     statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without
                     availing alternative remedy under Section
                     154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.."

         6.    As the applicant has an efficacious and alternative remedy of

         filing a criminal complaint before the Court of competent

         jurisdiction, therefore, this application is dismissed with liberty to

         file a criminal complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.



                                                              (G.S. Ahluwalia)
                                                                    Judge
(alok)


ALOK KUMAR
2022.04.22

15:52:44 +05'30'