Dwarka Prasad Gupta vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 17022 MP

                           1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
               ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                WRIT PETITION No. 28748 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
DWARKA PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE RAJARAM GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED FROM
MPRSTC WARD NO.11, MAIN MARKET, JATARA,
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AHADULLA USMANI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
      BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
      VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE   COLLECTOR     TIKAMGARH DISTRICT
      TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THE STATE OF
      MADHYA    PRADESH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIKAMGARH JATARA,
      DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    CHIEF    MUNICIPAL    OFFICER MUNICIPAL
      COUNCIL    JATARA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.    STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
      J A T A R A DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

8.    LAKHANLAL GUPTA S/O LATE RAJARAM GUPTA,
                             2
      AGED    ABOUT    60   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      ASSISTANT REVENUE INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL
      COUNCIL JATARA, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH R/O
      WARD NO.11, JATARA, TEHSIL AND POLICE
      STATION  JATARA, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.    HEMANT GUPTA W/O LAKHANLAL GUPTA, AGED
      ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.11, JATARA,
      TEHSIL AND POLICE STATION JATARA, DISTRICT
      TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI A. RAJESHWAR RAO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                            ORDER

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent authorities to constitute a team for conduction of enquiry against the Respondent No.8 & 9.

7.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent authorities for conduction of departmental enquiry against the Respondent No.8.

7.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent authorities for taking cognizance on the complaints made by the petitioner against the Respondent No.8 & 9 to the Respondent authorities.

7.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Police authorities for registration of offences for tempering the records of Municipal Council Jatara District Tikamgarh against the Respondent No.8 & 9 at Police Station Jatara District Tikamgarh.

7.5 Any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents authorities in not registering the FIR against respondents No.8 and 9. He submits that petitioner has preferred a written complaint (Annexure P/14) before SHO, Police Station Jatar, District Tikamgarh but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has also filed a complaint to Collector, Tikamgarh, for conducting departmental enquiry against respondent No.8, which is still pending. Hence, this petition.

Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as has been held in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & others (2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338). He further submits that it is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such,

the present petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the registration of FIR is concerned, the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and in the light of the judgment in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya (supra), this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy available in accordance with law, if so advised.

So far as the the complaint filed before the Collector is concerned, the Collector, Tikamgarh, is directed to decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.12.21 16:20:50 +05'30'