Zeeshan Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5487 MP

                             1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT I N D O R E
                         BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                 DHARMADHIKARI
                             &
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                ON THE 3rd OF APRIL, 2023


                WRIT APPEAL No. 412 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
ZEESHAN ALI S/O LATE SHRI SHAMEEMUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, SHAMEEM VILLA, KHANUGAON, VIP ROAD, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, ADVOCATE)


AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1. DEPARTMENT OF HOME VALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA,
   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SP OFFICE, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
2.
   PRADESH)
   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (POLICE) SONKKATCHH, DIST. DEWAS
3.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   TOWN INSPECTOR, P.S. BHOURASA, TEH. SONKATCH, DIST. DEWAS
4.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRI RAWAT, PATWARI, TEH. SONKATCH, OCCUPATION: PATWARI
5.
   DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRI RAJESH AGRAWAL, R/O A-704, DREAM CITY, TALAVALI
6.
   CHANDA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SMT. KIRTI AGRAWAL, A-704, DREAM CITY, TALAVALI CHANDA
7.
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRI SUKHEY R/O KANJARI BASTI, GRAM SUMRAKHEDI, TEH.
8.
   SONKATCH, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHRI RAM HARI R/O KANJARI BASTI, GRAM SUMRAKHEDI TEHSIL
9.
   SONLATCHH DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                     2
    SHRI AFSAR SHEIKH R/O KANJARI BASTI, GRAM SUMRAKHEDI
10.
    TEHSIL SONLATCHH DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
    RATNAKAR BANK LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER OFFICE AT
11. PLOT NO.1 WARD NO.12, INDIRANAGAR, TEH. GOHARGANJ,
    SECTOR A, MANDIDEEP (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

       This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:

                                ORDER

This writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya Ki Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 challenge has been made to the order dated 16/03/2023 passed in W.P. No.5703/2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. The appellant/petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) Set-aside the impugned order dated 16/03/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in W.P. No.5703/2023.

(ii) Respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to restrain themselves from lodging any criminal case against the appellant or his mother on basis of a fabricated case created by the respondents No.5 to 10 in the ends of justice.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be accorded in favour of the appellant."

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact, therefore, no direction can be issued in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 2014 SC 187.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant had

not approached the learned Single Judge seeking direction to register the FIR but since the appellant facing continuous threat of dire consequence and even murder from the respondents No.5 and 6, therefore, he had prayed for police protection.

5. The issue involved in the present case is of non cognizable offence, therefore, police is not bound to take cognizance of the offence. However, since personal liberty of the appellant is at stake, he can always approach this Court seeking protection as per law.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in coming into the conclusion that the appellant is seeking direction to lodge the FIR, which is absolutely misplaced. It is further submitted that inspite of repeated requests made by the appellant to various authorities including concerned Superintendent of Police, the representation has not been decided.

7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that learned Single Judge has not given any finding on merits and has refrained from entertaining the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact are involved, no ground is available to assail in the present writ appeal. He further submitted that as such no culpable error has occurred in the order, therefore, no such relief is to be granted, hence present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. On perusal of the order of writ petition No.5703/2023 passed on 16/03/2023, it can be very well seen that learned Single Judge has not dealt the matter on merits but has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved and no cognizance offence appears to be have been committed by the respondents No.6 to

10, therefore, no direction can be issued in the light of Lalita Kumari (Supra)

10. On perusal of writ petition, particularly the prayer clause, it is seen that appellant had prayed for a direction to the respondents No.1 to 4 to take action against the respondents No.5 to 10 with respect to the threats and demands which they are making from the appellant. Appellant being a law abiding citizen of this Country is eligible for protection, if he apprehends danger to his life.

11. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents No.2 to 4 to look into the matter and decide the complaint in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16/03/2023 passed in W.P. No.5703/2023 is set-aside. Appellant is granted liberty to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police by filing a fresh representation in accordance with law within a period of seven days from today. If such a representation is filed by the appellant, then, the Competent Authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law and if it is found that appellant needs protection, then, the same may be extended to him on payment of usual charges, as per rules.

12. Writ appeal stands allowed.

No order as to costs.

         (S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)               (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                      JUDGE                               JUDGE
Aiyer*
Digitally signed by
JAGADISHAN AIYER
Date: 2023.04.05
13:37:47 +05'30'