Atul Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14326 MP

                           1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                  ON THE 4th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

              WRIT PETITION No. 21523 of 2022

     BETWEEN:-
     ATUL SINGH S/O BRIJENDRA SINGH, AGED
     ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCACY
     R/O WARD NO.11 NAGAR PARISHAD CHURHAT,
     SIDHI ROAD CHURHAT, DISTRICT SIDHI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                 .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI K.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

     AND
1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
     URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING
     DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   COMMISSIONER URBAN ADMINISTRATION
     AND   HOUSING PALIKA BHAWAN BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   JOINT DIRECTOR URBAN ADMINISTRATION
     D E PA R T M E N T REWA DIVISION REWA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   COLLECTOR SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

5.   CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PARISHAD
     C H U R H A T DISTRICT SIDHI   (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

6.   L O K AYU K T BLOCK   SULATNIYA   BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.   RAJENDRA PRASAD PATEL ACCOUNTANT/
     ESTABLISHMENT CLERK NAGAR PARISHAD
     CHUR HAT SIDHI ROAD CHURHAT DISTRICT
     SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2
                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
           (SMT. G.K. PATEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI K.C.
           GHILDIYAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ADITYA VEER
           SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)

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

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents/authorities in not taking any action against the respondent No.7, who has prepared forged documents.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the

prayer and submitted that no such direction can be issued to the investigating authority to arrest the accused persons and to make fair investigation. If no action is being taken by the Police Authorities to arrest the accused persons, the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy of filing an application 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). As such, this petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with liberty to file an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate in the light of the judgment in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya (supra).

Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE DPS Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Date: 2022.11.05 13:06:40 +05'30'