Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shama Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
1 RP-1230-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1230 of 2025
SHAMA KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Piyush
Kumar Tiwari and Shri Anuj Karnatak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code
has been filed for review/recall of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Writ
Petition No. 38302/2024 (Shama Khan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) whereby
another Writ Petition No. 32868/2024 (Deepak Verma vs. State of M.P. &
Ors.) has been disposed off by common order.
02. Petitioner - Shama Khan had approached this Court seeking
enforcement of his leasehold rights and direction for enquiry and action
against officials and responsible authorities involved in the illegal grant of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
2 RP-1230-2025
lease in favour of third parties. Petitioner Deepak Verma had approached this
Court seeking quashment of the renewal order and lease deed by which his
mining lease in Khasra No. 33/1/4/4 had wrongfully and fraudulently been
renewed in the name of respondent No.5 - Shama Khan.
03. Case of the petitioner Shama Khan is that he challenged the
order dated 05.04.2024 whereby respondents have canncelled the allotment
of lease which was granted earlier in favour of the petitioner. Vide order
dated 04.07.2025, this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition with a direction
to the respondents to register the FIR against the petitioner under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further direction to
initiate the recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have not come up in their reply with clean hands and have dared to mislead
this Court by blaming the petitioner who is the power of attorney holder. The
respondents have concealed the important facts in their reply and have
obtained the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 by narrating the wrong facts
and impugned order has been passed on the basis of faulty investigation
report (Annexure R/3 with the reply) which led on the unwarranted enquiry,
that too, without opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner
is a victim of Deepak Verma, who was petitioner in W.P. No. 32868/2024 as
well as government officials engaged in unlawful activities since the original
quarry lease was issued for the area in question. The petitioner was granted
patta for quarrying on survey No. 33/1/4/3, ad-measuring 3.642 hectares
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
3 RP-1230-2025
situated in the Village - Raavadh, Tehsil - Depalpur, Dist. Indore for a period
of 10 years vide lease deed Annexure P/1 dated 10.09.2018.
06. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 submits that FIR cannot be registered without
preliminary enquiry against him and the direction with regard to initiation of
recovery proceedings for illegal mining against the petitioner is also
unwarranted and may be recalled as the petitioner has not at yet been held
guilty for illegal excavation. Recovery can only be made when it is found
that he has illegally excavated the minerals and quantity thereof is also
ascertained and imposing of cost also needs relook. On these submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the petition by recalling
the aforesaid order.
07. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the
prayer for recall/review of impugned order.
08. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record including the order dated
04.07.2025.
09. In the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), no absolute bar has been
created against the registration of FIR without holding preliminary enquiry.
It is a case wherein the Apex Court has taken care of the facts that police in
so many cases have been found slow to register the FIR even where
cognisable offence is found to have been committed. In para - 120 of the
Lalita Kumari's case , directions have been given with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
4 RP-1230-2025
registration of FIR which runs as under:
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be
supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later
than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.
Action must be taken against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information received by him discloses
a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information received
but only to ascertain whether the information reveals
any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in
which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/latches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
5 RP-1230-2025
of all conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the
accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time bound and in any case it should
not exceed 15 days generally and in exceptionally cases,
by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is
provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it
must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily
Diary is the record of all information received in a
police station, we direct that all information relating to
cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of
FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision
to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected,
as mentioned above.
Emphasis Supplied
10. From perusal of the directions given as mentioned herein-above, it
is apparent that holding the preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before
registration of FIR. Preliminary enquiry is to be conducted will depend on
facts and circumstances of each case. Guidelines given in para - 120.6 cannot
be construed that in each and every case involving corruption, preliminary
enquiry is to be necessarily held before registration of FIR, therefore, the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this behalf is not tenable,
hence rejected.
11. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner for
recalling/reviewing/altering the directions as contained in the impugned
order are also found not tenable. Directions given are self explanatory. The
order cannot be reviewed/recalled on mere apprehensions of the petitioner
with regard to recovery proceedings unless the case falls under the ambit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18870
6 RP-1230-2025
Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error apparent on the
face of record warranting any interference in exercise of Review petition. It
is well settled that cases are heard and decided only once. To make departure
from this statutory rule, the revision application must strictly fall within the
established parameters. In light of settled principles of law, we are of the
considered view that there is no merit and substance in the review petition as
in a review, the Court has very limited power circumscribed by definitive
limits. Even after elaborate arguments, no error apparent on the face of
record could be pointed out. Hence, this review petition which is devoid of
any substance fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
