Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vimal Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 WP-12038-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12038 of 2024
VIMAL JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned G.A. for the respondent / State.
Mohd. Rafik Sheikh, learned counsel for the intervener.
ORDER
Both the parties heard.
02. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to
the respondents in pursuance of FIRs bearing Crime No.96/2024, registered
at Police Station : Pipliya Mandi, District Mandsaur, Crime No.188/2024
registered at P.S. : Javad, District Neemuch, Crime No.95/2024 registered at
P.S. : Pipliyamandi, District Mandsaur, Crime No.191/2024, registered at
P.S. : Neemuch City, District Neemuch and Crime No.123/2024 registered at
P.S. : Jeeran District Neemuch.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that approximately 39
trucks were seized by the police authorities and recovered 528 animals from
the trucks, whereas further 16 trucks carrying approximately 220 animals are
2 WP-12038-2024
missing, direction taken by the police authority are very doubtful, proper
investigation is going on. The respondents are dealing with the issue in a
very negligent manner and mandatory provisions of M.P. Agricultural Cattle
Preservation Act, 1959, as well as M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh
Adhiniyam, 2004 have been violated. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also not
played their role in a proper manner, therefore, this petitioners have filed this
petition before this Court. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment
passed by the Apex Court in case of Ramakrishna Mission and another V/s
Kago Kunya and others reported in (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 303 .
04. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in these matters,
certain FIRs have been registered and the Judicial Magistrate has a power to
direct to register the FIR and ensure a proper investigation, therefore, in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu V/s State
of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 a n d Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe V/s Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in
(2016) 6 SCC 277 this writ petition is not maintainable.
05. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) in
paragraph No.27 has held as under:
''27. The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition
or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being
registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this
grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police
officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC
before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200
CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482
CrPC.''
06. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao
Tambe (supra) in paragraph No.4 has held as under:
3 WP-12038-2024
''4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case², the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into
the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it
necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of
the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The
Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself
investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce
any material they wish before the Magistrate f concerned. The learned
Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned
order of the High Court.''
07. From perusal of the citation of Ramakrishna Mission (supra) filed
by the petitioners, it appears that although petitioners have a right to file a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the aforesaid
matters, but they also have an alternate remedy available under Section 156
of Cr.P.C. and they can approach the concerned Magistrate under Section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old Act) for their grievances
regarding the irregularity in the investigation, but the petitioners did not avail
the said mandatory remedy.
08. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners
can avail remedies under Section156(3) of Cr.P.C. hence, there is no need to
issue any writ in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
09. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and substance
and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
4 WP-12038-2024
