Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohsin Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7607
1 WP-4372-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4372 of 2025
MOHSIN ALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Takmeel Nasir - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D. R. Vishwakarma - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to issue directions to the respondents/authorities to
take action on his complaint.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that cognizable
offence has been committed by respondent No.4. It is submitted that after
receiving complaint, no action has been taken by respondents/authorities. It
is incumbent upon the respondents/authorities to register an FIR, if
cognizable offence is disclosed and if there is non-cognizable offence then
also petitioner is to be informed that no cognizable offence is made out so
that petitioner can resort other remedies available to him in accordance with
law. It is further submitted that as per Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 173 lays down that every information given relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the
offence is committed is to be registered by officer in charge of a police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7607
2 WP-4372-2025
station, if offence is cognizable in nature and punishable between 3-7 years
then with prior permission from Deputy Superintendent of Police
preliminary enquiry is to be conducted within period of 14 days and if there
is a prima facie case, then action is to be taken. It is further submitted that
complaint was lodged on 23.06.2024. The competent authority is sitting tight
over the matter and not taking any decision to lodge information or to take
any other action. In view of same, directions may be issued.
3. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submitted that
petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is having alternate remedy, therefore,
petitioner may approach appropriate authorities raising his grievance and
hence, petition be dismissed.
4. Heard counsel for the parties.
5. Existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for filing of writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is discretion of Court to
entertain or not to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India despite of availability of alternate remedy. If alternate
remedy is not efficacious and quick and there is violation of fundamental
rights of petitioner or opportunity of hearing was not provided to him, than
Court can always interfere in the matter despite availability of alternate
remedy. In this case, petitioner has lodged a complaint on 23.06.2024. As per
Code of Criminal Procedure and judgment passed by Apex Court in case of
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , it
was directed that in cognizable case, FIR is to be registered. A party will
have an alternate remedy only when police informs that no cognizable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7607
3 WP-4372-2025
offence is made out. In present case, Police is sitting tight over the matter and
no decision is taken to register the case or not to register the case. Police is
free to take decision to lodge or not lodge FIR in accordance with Section
173 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023. No decision has been
taken by respondents leaving petitioner in a quandary.
6. In view of same, respondent/authorities are directed to do
preliminary enquiry which means to go through the complaint and find out
whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. If cognizable offence is
made out then Police shall register FIR.
7. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
