Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramakant Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3808
1 WP-5502-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5502 of 2025
RAMAKANT JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been directed challenging the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by
the respondent no.3 directing respondent no.6 to take action against the
petitioner on a complaint, though of civil nature, made by respondent no.5,
despite having no jurisdiction under section 175 (3) of the BNSS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent no.5
submitted a written complaint to the respondent no.3 on 26.9.2024 against
the petitioner in which allegations were made against him that he has
purchased a land through registered sale deed from the petitioner and after
that petitioner has not given him possession of the same however, no notice
was issued to the petitioner on the said complaint nor any case was
registered on the said complaint, rather on 28.3.2024 an order was passed to
call for the inquiry report from the Revenue Inspector and the Revenue
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3808
2 WP-5502-2025
Inspector Circle Bhind also did not issue any notice to the petitioner and
thereafter respondent no.3 directed the respondent no.6 to take against the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order
on the ground that the same has been issued without issuing any notice to
the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, and
therefore, the order dated 21.10.2024 is per-se illegal and against the
principles of natural justice. To bolster his submissions learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed
by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2018 in case of Naman
Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and
others. The Apex Court in para 8 of order dated 13.12.2018 has held as
under : -
"It is therefore apparent that in the scheme of the Code, an
Executive Magistrate has no role to play in directing the police to
register an FIR on basis of a private complaint lodged before him.
If a complaint is lodged before the Executive Magistrate regarding
an issue over which he has administrative jurisdiction, and the
Magistrate proceeds to hold an administrative inquiry, it may be
possible for him to lodge an FIR himself in the matter. In such a
case, entirely different considerations would arise. A reading of
the FIR reveals that the police has registered the FIR on directions
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible
in the law. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate does not exercise
powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. The very institution of
the FIR in the manner done is contrary to the law and without
jurisdiction."
4. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the preliminary enquiry has been conducted behind
the back of the petitioner and therefore, the order dated 21.10.2024 passed
by the respondent no.3 is absolutely illegal and contrary to law and the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3808
3 WP-5502-2025
deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has supported the
impugned order dated 21.10.2024 and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court looking to the fact
that preliminary inquiry has been conducted behind the back of the
petitioner deems it appropriate to direct the respondent no.6-Station House
Officer to conduct an independent investigation in the matter after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned without getting
influenced by the preliminary enquiry which was conducted behind his back
and Investigating Officer is expected to conclude the investigation as early
as possible and to take necessary steps as required under the law.
8. With aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off finally.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
