Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nilima Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 3587 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. NILIMA RAJAWAT W/O KUNWAR COLONEL
PRASAHDN SINGH RAJAWAT , AGED ABOUT 58
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 160/4 LANE
NO. 4 PRATAP ENCLAVE ARMY AREA JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN PERMANENT RESIDENT 1967
JANKIKUNJ BHARAT COLONY MADAN MAHAL
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY HOME VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIG CRIME JABALPUR ZONE JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. S.H.O. P.S GARHA DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJEEV GUPTA S/O NOT KNOWN OCCUPATION:
NIL NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH, PANEL LAWYER)
Th is petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct to call for the
records pertaining to the complaint dated 04.06.2021 made by the
petitioner to the respondent no.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur
(M.P.).
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to kindly direct the
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.02.22 12:56:53 IST
respondents no.2 to 4 to register an FIR against the respondent no.5 for
the cheating committed by him with the petitioner.
(iii) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be given by
this Hon'ble Court.
The respondent no.5 presenting himself to be a Director of Ramraj Compay
has defrauded the petitioner and her entire family by taking away a huge amount of
R.18,50,000/- in the name of investment in his Company. The respondent no.5
took the entire guarantee of secured and good return for the investment. By way of
guarantee the respondent no.5 issued post-dated cheques in favour of the
petitioner and her family. When the respondent no.5 denied repayment, the
petitioner represented the matter before the respondents no.3 and 4; however, no
action has been taken against the respondent no.5. The petitioner is struggling for
her own money from last one and a half year. Having found no other alternative,
the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.
Counsel appearing for the State submits that the relief which has been
claimed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sakri Basu vs. State of U.P and
others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe vs.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 and M.
Subramanium vs. S. Jakari reported in (2020) 6 SCALE 204. The petitioner is
having a remedy to approach before the concerned Magistrate by filing an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for redressal of his grievances, if she
is not satisfied with the proceedings drawn up by the police authorities.
In such circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained. It is hereby
dismissed.
However, a liberty is extended to the petitioner to approach before the
concerned Magistrate by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. for redressal of her grievances in terms of the directions given by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.02.22 12:56:53 IST
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.02.22 12:56:53 IST
