Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8150
1 WP-1784-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1784 of 2014
RAMESH SINGH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot - G.A. for respondent/State.
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 crime No.38/13 registered at Police Station Saraichhola
Police Station Morena 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8150
2 WP-1784-2014
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
first 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. After hearing learned counsel for the State and perusing the record,
this Court finds that the issue with regard to directing the police officials to
conduct fair and proper investigation in the matter and to arrest the accused
persons 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8150
3 WP-1784-2014
Judicial Magistrate of competent criminal jurisdiction under the provisions
of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
5. 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
ojha
