Kavindra Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1961 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                 ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                WRIT PETITION No. 2878 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
1.    KAVINDRA MARAVI S/O AMAR SINGH MARVI,
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
      R/O VILLAGE DHANVAHI P.S. BIJADANDI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    RAJENDRA YADAV S/O HIRALAL YADAV
      OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE DHANVAHI
      P.S. BIJADANDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P. N. SINGH, ADVOCATE)

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

2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
      HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL DISTRICT (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    SUPERINTENDANT    OF  POLICE   JABALPUR
      DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
      JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    POLICE STATION INCHARGE (SC/ST) JABALPUR
      DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    POLICE STATON INCHARGE BARELA JABALPUR
      DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.    RAMESH BAIRAGI S/O INDAL DAS BAIRAGI R/O
      VILLAGE BARELA POLICE STATION BARELA
      DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2
8.    RAHUL SAHU S/O RAVI SAHU R/VILLAGE
      BIJADANDI   POLICE  STATION  BIJADANDI
      DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.    MONU     CHAKRAWATI   S/O    RAMRATAN
      CHAKRAWATI R/O UDAYPUR POLICE STATION BI
      JADANDI   DISTRICT   MANDLA     (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

10.   IBBU @ IBRAR AHMAD S/O ANWAR AHMAD R/O
      UDAYPUR POLICE STATION BI JADANDI
      DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.   BRAJESH S/O PHOOLDAS BAIRAGI R/O UDAYPUR
      POLICE STATION BI JADANDI DISTRICT MANDLA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YASH SONI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, making a prayer that respondent authorities be directed to register FIR against respondent nos.7 to 11.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners went to the petrol pump where they were assaulted and brutally beaten by respondent nos.7 to 11. They fainted on spot and thereafter they went to police station to lodge F.I.R but no report was lodged and even petitioners were not sent for medical examination. In these circumstances authorities be directed to act in accordance with law.

3. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submitted that petitioners are having alternative remedy to file application under Sections 154(3), 156(3) or under section 200 CrPC and avail the alternative remedy.

Since petitioners are having alternative remedy, therefore, writ petition may be dismissed with liberty. Learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that notices be issued to private respondents and no direction be given without hearing them.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Petitioners are persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe. They are living in Mandla in a backward place and district. Considering their social background and circumstances in which they have approached this Court, this Court deemed it proper to entertain the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy to petitioners.

6. In view of aforesaid circumstances, writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of directing Town Inspector to consider the complaint of petitioners and if cognizable offence is made out against respondent nos.7 to 11 then F.I.R be registered in accordance with law and the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

8. At the stage of lodging of F.I.R, hearing of respondents is not required. T.I is only required to consider the complaint of petitioners and examine the same and if it is found that cognizable offence is made out against the private respondents, then he has to act in accordance with law and as per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).

9. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed off.

C.C as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2023.02.07 12:34:08 +05'30'