[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harbhajan Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
1 WP-46912-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 46912 of 2025
HARBHAJAN SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Kushwah - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, inter alia, claiming for the following reliefs;
" 7 . The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondents No.2 and 3
to make fair investigation into the complaint as made by the
petitioner Annexure P/1 and take appropriate action against the
offenders, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove.
Pass any other relief (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
practising Advocate residing at Gram Harinagar, District Shivpuri. He further
submits that on 15.11.2025, private respondents No.5 and 6, along with
respondent No.4, S.I., and other police personnel (in civil dress), arrived at
the petitioner's house at Harinagar, Police Station Pichhore, District
Shivpuri. The police and the private respondents, without any lawful warrant,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
2 WP-46912-2025
forcefully entered the petitioner's residential premises. They were reportedly
searching for one Ratiram. The petitioner and his family members were
subjected to abuse with obscene language, assault, physical force including
pushing and showing. Respondent No.5 allegedly pointed a country made
pistol (Katta) at the petitioner's ear, threatening to kill him if he did not
disclose the whereabouts of Ratiram. Respondent No.4 also threatened to
falsely implicate the petitioner and his brother Ram Singh, under the Cr.P.C.
and have them locked up, resulting in the petitioner and his brother being
wrongfully confined within their own house. He further submits that the
petitioner lodge a detailed written complaint on 15.11.2025 to the concerned
authorities, including the SHO, Police Station Pichhore, Shivpuri, and the
Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, requesting the registration of an F.I.R for
offence including robbery, assault, criminal intimidation, illegal confinement,
and abuse; however no FIR has been registered nor any investigation has
commenced. Hence, the petitioner seeks the relief as prayed.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by non-registration of FIR, the proper remedy lies under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C./ BNSS by approaching the competent Magistrate.
Filing of writ petition for the said purpose is not maintainable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The reliefs claimed in the present petition are couched in such terms
so as to give an impression that a fair investigation into the complaint made
by the petitioner is sought for; however, learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly submits that investigation commences only after registration of an FIR,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
3 WP-46912-2025
and in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is also seeking a direction for
registration of an F.I.R and investigation being consequential action
thereafter.
7. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a Writ
Petition for direction to the Police to register FIR is maintainable or not ?
8. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee & Others vs. Union of
India (2007) 6 SCC 171 has held:
"7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the
alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a
duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The
only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities
to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be
adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute
of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303]
and reiterated in Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 404] the remedy available is as set out above by filing a
complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that
there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical
Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] ,
Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari
Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] , Minu
Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and
Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 :
AIR 2006 SC 1322] , we find that the view expressed in Ramesh
Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006
SC 1322] related to the action required to be taken by the police when
any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari
case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC
1322] the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted
which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical
Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] ,
Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Minu
Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Hari
Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] . The view
expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC
(Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v.
State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684 : AIR
2006 SC 3376] . The course available, when the police does not carry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
4 WP-46912-2025
out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue
in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 63] and Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC
(Cri) 310] . The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police
officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their
notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the
police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set
out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that
in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24-2-
2003 with WP (C) No. 530 of 2002 and WP (C) No. 221 of 2002.
Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid
writ petitions." 8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the
following directions: (1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of
the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in
Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and
observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the
police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid
provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it
is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The
Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within
three months from the date of receipt of this order. (4) We make it
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of
Kerala and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 has held as under:-
"41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise
of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always
issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if
the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been
exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be
exercised in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of
power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter
XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the
High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the
police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always
insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code. 42.
Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the
information given to them, the informant's remedy lies under Sections
190, 200 CrPC, but a writ petition in such a case is not to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
5 WP-46912-2025
entertained. This Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768] held : (SCC pp. 774-75, para
13) "13. When the information is laid with the police, but no action in
that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section
190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the
Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and
the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in
Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording
evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the
accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to
investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit
a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence
to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint
under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the
complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is
empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue
process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this
Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303]
. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not
to be entertained."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held as under:-
"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under
Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154 (3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that
does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR
is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper
investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate
concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before
the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and
also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where,
according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made.
The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
6 WP-46912-2025
as under:-
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v.
State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR
2008 SC 907] , that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not
been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper
investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved
person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under
Section 156 (3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can
direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he
can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his
discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the
investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the
matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC
907] because what we have found in this country is that the High
Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration
of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3.
We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ
petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will
not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ
petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his
alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section
156 (3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima
facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and
also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also
monitor the investigation. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri
Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1
SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] , the impugned judgment
[Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. S.T. Mohite, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom
2251] 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 concerned.
The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in
the impugned order of the High Court."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32257
7 WP-46912-2025
12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadauria
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 20/12/2016 in W.A. No. 247/2016
(Gwalior Bench) has held that a Writ Petition for the purposes of directing
the respondents to lodge the FIR is not maintainable and has held as under:-
"(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."
13. In light of the settled position of law as discussed hereinabove, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under Section 200
Cr.P.C./Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for
redressal of his grievance, if so desire.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
