Brijendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12929 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Brijendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                              1
                           IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                   ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 9771 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          BRIJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI SHIV SINGH JATAV
                          OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O WARD NO. 1,
                          SINGHWARI, MALANPUR, PS MALANPUR BHIND
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (NONE)

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

                          2.    COLLECTOR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SUPERINTENDENT     OF     POLICE POLICE
                                HEADQUARTERS BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    STATION         HOUSE         OFFICER       POLICE
                                H E A D Q U A R T E R S P.S   MALANPUR       BHIND
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    BRIJENDRA PAL BANSAL S/O LATE SHRI
                                RAMDEEN BANSAL R/O HARIRAM KA PURA
                                MALANPUR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - AAG FOR THE STATE)

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

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed

by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to conduct fair investigation in the matter and to arrest the accused person.

2. At the outset, learned Government Advocate submits that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner is not maintainable in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., 2008 AIR SCW 309 and Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. And others, 2017 (1) MPJR 247 and the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction under the provisions of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., and

therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

3. For ready reference para 6 of the order dated 21.12.2016 passed in W. A. No.247/2016 (Shweta Bhadoria vs. State of M.P. and Ors) is reproduced herein below:

6. Before parting the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience :-

( 1 ) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C can be denied to the informant /victim for non-availing of alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the informant / victim. (2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling the police to

perform statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without availing alternative remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.. (3) Subject to (1) supra the informant / victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged. (4) Subject to (1) supra the proposed accused against whom the fi r s t information of commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

4 . Countering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court the remedy available to the petitioner is before competent Court of criminal Jurisdiction, but this Court by invoking inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the police authorities to conduct the investigation properly on the complaint so made by the petitioner.

5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the issue with regard to directing the police officials to conduct fair and proper investigation in

the matter, to make arrest of the accused persons and file challan before the competent court of jurisdiction is no more res integra. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/State the issue is very well settled that such type of directions can only be given by the Judicial Magistrate of competent criminal jurisdiction under the provisions of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is at a liberty to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate for redressal of his grievance.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni