Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramkishore Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                    1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                     ON THE 3rd OF MAY, 2024
                      WRIT PETITION No. 9703 of 2024

    BETWEEN:-

    RAMKISHORE SAKET S/O SUKHAI SAKET, AGED
    ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
    VILLAGE    KODHVA   TAHSIL   HANUMANA
    DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                          .....PETITIONER
    (NONE )

    AND

    1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
          THROUGH THE SECRETARY PANCHAYAT
          DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY      VALLABH
          BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

    2.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REWA,
          DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

    3.    THE STATION OFFICER, POLICE STATION
          HANUMANA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
          PRADESH)
                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 to do fair and proper investigation on petitioner's complaints and complete the same as early as possible, in the interest of justice.

(ii)Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

2. The petition has been filed in vague terms. One part of the petition says that police authorities are not taking any action on the complaint made by the petitioner regarding murder of his son. Whereas in paragraphs no. 5.4 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that petitioner has also filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Hanumana, Rewa but the police is not submitting report. The petitioner has not filed copy of the order sheets of the court of Magistrate, therefore, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner has approached the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. or not?

3. As none appears for the petitioner, therefore, this petition is disposed of in the following terms :-

(i) If the petitioner has approached the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has already directed the Police to submit report, then in the light of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR Online 2021 MP 269 and relied upon by this Court

in the case of Shanti Devi Agrawal Vs. The State of M.P. and others in M.Cr.C.No.4382/2024, concerning Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the said judgment which reads as under :-

"20. To resolve this situation, following guiding principles are laid down in cases of simultaneous filing of Sec.156(3) application and Sec.200 complaint:-

(i) As regards Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. application (alleging only non-registration of FIR), the procedure as per para 15.(4)(A) be followed.

(ii) The Police qua Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.

application (alleging improper/delayed investigation simpliciter or along with non registration of FIR) should not be granted more than 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed.

(iii) If the Police submits the report within 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed, then the Magistrate may pass appropriate directions in accordance with law to either dismiss/dispose of 156(3) application with/without directions by passing a speaking order or to supervise and monitor the investigating process if need arises.

(iv) However, in case the Police fails to submit report within 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed, then the Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. in accordance with Chapter

XV and XVI Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the bar in Sec.210 Cr.P.C.

(v) While so proceeding under Chapter XV and XVI Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall keep in mind that as and when police report u/S.173 Cr.P.C. is filed [even after 60/90 days or any longer period of time statutorily prescribed] and cognizance of offence in police report is taken, then the Magistrate shall club the complaint case with the charge-sheet (final report) filed by police and proceed to adjudicate both the cases together treating them to have arisen from police report."

(ii) If the petitioner has not approached the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., then in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of "Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 20.12.2016 in Writ Appeal No.247/2016, this Court cannot direct the police to register FIR and the petitioner shall be free to

approach the concerning Magistrate under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.

4. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

JITENDRA KUMAR Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

PAROUHA serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2024.05.06 19:47:01 +05'30'