Mohammad Sharif vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13121 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                            ON THE 11 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 27126 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MOHAMMAD SHARIF S/O SHRI AHMED KHAN, AGED
                           ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                           MEENAPURA JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI MAKBOOL AHMAD MANSOORI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER .

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

                           2.    STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
                                 INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAORA DISTRICT RATLAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ANAND JAISWAL, NAIB TEHSILDAR AND IN
                                 CHARGE TEHSILDAR JAORA DISTRICT RATLAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    MAHENDRA SINGH S/O JUJHAR SINGH, AGED
                                 ABOUT   38  YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                 MEENAPURA    JAORA    DISTRICT  RATLAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    ISHWAR SINGH (PATWARI) S/O MANGU SINGH
                                 OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE KALUKHEDA,
                                 TEHSIL PIPLODA , RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    SHAHID S/O ASHRAF KHAN OCCUPATION:
                                 BUSINESS VILLAGE BORDA, TEHSIL JAORA
                                 DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    PANKAJ RATHORE, PATWARI JAORA TOWN
Signature Not Verified
                                 DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 11-08-2023
18:41:41
                                                               2

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI - P.L. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2/STATE)

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

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to re-conduct an enquiry in pursuant to the complaint submitted by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 to 7.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made a complaint before the respondents alleging that the Tahsildar passed a forged order dated 16.09.2021

stating that he had perused the record and allowed the application submitted by the respondent No.4 under section 109 and 110 of the MPLRC and directed Pankaj Rathore, respondent No.7 to record the name of L.Rs. of original owner Resham Kunwar in the revenue record. Against the order of Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the SDO and the same is pending. The respondents have made an enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and did not find any cognizable offence in the matter and in view of the pendency of the case between the parties, they advised them to maintain peace and tranquality till the matter is adjudicated by the Court.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have found that an enquiry is necessary, then they should have recorded a finding that no cognizable offence is made out. He relied on para 20.2 of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Charansingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 5 SCC 469.

4. Counsel for the State submitted that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the report of the respondents, the remedy available to the petitioner is to Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11-08-2023 18:41:41

file a criminal complaint in accordance with law against the respondents. It is further argued that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot direct for registration of FIR. In support of his submission, a reference has been made to the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Sakri Basu Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) SCC 409 and also the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. , 2017(1) MPLJ (Cr)

5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, I do not find any merit in the petition in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the report of the respondents on his complaint, he may seek remedy available to him in accordance with law in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria (supra).

In view of aforesaid, the petition is not entertained and is disposed of.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 11-08-2023 18:41:41