Jagdish Prasad Bhagoria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6419 MP

                             1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             W.P.No.9854/2022
       (Jagdish Prasad Bhagoria Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

Gwalior Bench Dated; 28.04.2022

        Shri O.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

        Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for State.

        The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

            "(1) That respondent No.3 may kindly be

directed to register FIR against the respondents No.4 to 7 on the basis of written complaint dated 15.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further directed to conduct proper investigation.

(2) That, any other appropriate and suitable relief to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is aggrieved by action of respondents No.2 and 3 whereby

no F.I.R. of cognizable offences has been registered on the written as

well as oral complaints made by complainant on 15.04.2022 and

onwards against the respondent No.4 to 7 with respect to demand

dowry and criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that as per

Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the concerning Officer-in-charge of police

station is duty bound to register FIR of cognizable offence even on the

oral information and a copy shall be supplied to the

informant/complainant under provision of sub-section (2) of Section

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.9854/2022 (Jagdish Prasad Bhagoria Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

154 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State referred the ground of

alternative remedy under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. He relied upon the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case Lalita Kumari Vs.

State of U.P., 2014 (2) SCC 1 and submitted that FIR ought to be

registered and investigation ought to be carried out.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended thereto.

It is the duty of Investigating Officer/police authority to take

proactive steps over any complaint made against miscreants/accused.

However, in the present case, no such direction at this stage can be

given and petitioner is relegated to move appropriate application under

Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to address his

grievance.

The petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the case.

                                                            (Anand Pathak)
AK/-                                                            Judge
   ANAND KUMAR
   2022.04.29
   09:52:25 +05'30'