Dr. Mohanlal Mahor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4961 MP

                           1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                 ON THE 27 th OF MARCH, 2023
       MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 4827 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
DR. MOHANLAL MAHOR S/O SHRI MOTILAL MAHOR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR
RESIDENT OF 11 ACHLESHWAR VIHAR TANSEN ROAD
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER


AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
      POLICE STATION PADAV DISTRICT GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHRI   VIVEK    ASTHANA, S.H.O. POLICE
      DEPATRTMENT POLICE STATION      PADAV
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SONU MAHOR S/O SANVANT SINGH MAHOR
      RESIDENT OF NEAR SHEETALA MATA MANDIR
      BAVAN PAYGA NAI SADAK GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    SANVANT SINGH MAHOR S/O LT. RAMKISHAN
      MAHOR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
      NEAR SHEETALA MATA MANDIR BAVAN PAYGA
      NAI SADAK GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    GYAN SINGH MAHOR S/O NOT KNOWN RESIDENT
      OF NEAR SHEETALA MATA MANDIR BAVAN
      PAYGA NAI SADAK GWALIOR        (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.K. AWASTHI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1-STATE )
                                    2
      This application coming on for ADMISSION. this day, the court passed
the following:
                                    ORDER

Advocates are abstaining from court work on account of call given by the State Bar Council.

Petitioner is present in person.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 10/01/2022 passed by the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Gwalior in case No. /2021 by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C has been rejected and case has been posted for

recording evidence under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in the last week of month of March, 2023.

Petitioner in person submits that he had entered into an agreement with respondent No.3 Sonu Mahore for running a clinic in the premises allegedly owned by respondent No.3 Sonu Mahore. Thereafter, about 31 Lakhs is alleged to have been spent by the petitioner in renovating premises for running the said hospital/clinic. There was no rent agreement and the agreement was for sharing of profit/losses. The grouse of the petitioner is that later on, due to commercial differences with respondent No.3 Sonu Mahore about 20 to 25 people had attacked the premises on 08/12/2021 and taken away the digital video recorder in order to hide their actions and to ensure that there is no proof for their misdeed. The FIR was registered by the police on the basis of complaint given by the petitioner but the petitioner was dissatisfied that those Sections that he wants to be added in the FIR relating to the theft of DVR was not registered in the FIR. Therefore, he filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the

ground that the Court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C can only direct for registration the FIR and can not dictate under what specific provisions of the law the FIR must be registered and therefore it dismissed the said application. Petitioner submits that the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and others, 2008 2 SCC 409, mandated that in such a case the Court should inclined to allow the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In order to buttress the submission, the petitioner has referred to paragraph 27 of the judgment. Having gone through the said paragraph, it appears that the Supreme Court has only observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C merely because his grievance i.e. FIR has not been registered by the police or after the FIR being registered, proper investigation has not been done. For this grievance, the Supreme Court held that there is adequate remedy available to the aggrieved party under Sections 36 and 154(8) of the Cr.P.C to escalate the complaint before the senior police Officer and even if, that be not availed then an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C or criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. can be preferred before the Magistrate.

Having gone through the order of the learned Trial Court, it appears that the learned court below has fixed the case before it for recording the statement of the petitioner herein under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, if the

statement of petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C reveals the case of theft under Section 379 of the IPC, thereafter, the learned Trial Court is empowered to take cognizance of said offence also.

Therefore, in view of above the order passed by the learned Trial Court can not be stated to be perverse and lacking in application of mind or requiring the interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, therefore, the

petition is dismissed.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Prachi

PRACHI MISHRA 2023.03.27 18:10:17 +05'30'