Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Singh Bhadauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13056 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
VISHNU SINGH BHADAURIA S/O LATE SHRI YADURAJ
BHADAURIA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O VISHNU SINGH BAHDAURIA C/P
LOKENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN PUNJAB SINGH BALI
GALI, KANCH MILL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIR LOT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ECONOMIC
OFFENSES WING, P.T.S. PARISAR, RING ROAD,
MUSAKHEDI INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MP STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING
FEDERATION LTD JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CHARBHUJA AGROCHEM PVT. LTD. THROUGH
NIMESH SHAH PLOT NO. 162, KADI ROAD,
CHHATRAL, GUJARAT (GUJARAT)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 29-05-2024
14:20:17
2
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to revive and re-
investigate the complaint bearing No.242/2020 by carrying out proper
investigation with respect to the same.
2. It appears that a complaint bearing No.242/2020 was made by the
petitioner to the Economic Offences Wing, Indore in the year 2020. As per the
petitioner he has not been intimated of the out come of complaint hence he had
made an application under the Right to Information Act for supply of the
proceedings taken on the same. By communication dated 17.10.2023 the
petitioner has been informed that the complaint after investigation has been filed
vide Headquarter Letter No.2188-A dated 06.10.2022.
3. From a perusal of the communication dated 17.10.2023, it is apparent
that the petitioner has been informed that his complaint has already been closed
on 06.10.2022. The remedy of the petitioner is hence to approach the
concerned Criminal Court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or to avail such
other remedy as may be available to him under the law. In exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not direct
revival and re-investigation of the already closed complaint.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the
judgment of this Court in W.P. No.18878 of 2020 [Rajendra Singh Pawar and
others vs. State of M.P. and others] decided on 24.12.2020, he ought to have
been supplied a copy of the order filing the complaint as well as proceedings of
the investigation is wholly misplaced.
5. In the aforesaid decision it has only been held by this Court that the
complainant shall be informed as regards the out come of his complaint. It has
nowhere been stated that he would have to be supplied a copy of the decision
as well as the enquiry proceedings.
6. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not deem it to be a fit case for
invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Admission is declined. Petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
