Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Chandra Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29288
1 WP-38337-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38337 of 2025
MAHESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of directions to the
respondents/authorities to take action on his complaint.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cognizable
offence has been committed by various private individuals. It is submitted
that after filing of the complaint by the petitioner, 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 of the same so that
the petitioner can resort to the other remedies available in accordance with
law. It is further submitted that Section 173 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 lays down that every information given relating to commission
of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29288
2 WP-38337-2025
committed is to be registered by officer incharge of a Police Station, if
offence is cognizable in nature and punishable between 3-7 years.
Preliminary enquiry is to be conducted within a period of 14 days and if
there is a prima facie case, then action is to be taken. It is also submitted that
complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 28.04.2024 (Annexure P/1). The
competent authority is sitting tight over the matter and is not taking any
decision to lodge information or to take any other action. It is hence
submitted that necessary directions may be issued.
03. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that
petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is having alternate remedy, hence
he may approach appropriate authorities raising his grievance in view of
which the petition deserves to be dismissed.
04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
05. Existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for filing a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the discretion of the Court to
entertain or not to entertain such a petition despite availability of alternate
remedy. If alternate remedy is not efficacious and there is violation of
fundamental rights of petitioner or opportunity of hearing is not provided,
then Court can always interfere in the matter despite availability of alternate
remedy. In this case, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 28.04.2024
(Annexure P/1). As per Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt.
of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , if a cognizable offence is made out then
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29288
3 WP-38337-2025
FIR is to be registered. A party will have alternate remedy only when Police
informs that no cognizable offence is made out. In the present case, the
Police is sitting tight over the matter and no decision is taken to register the
case or not. The Police authorities are free to take decision to lodge or not to
lodge the FIR in accordance with Section 173 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Surksha Sanhita, 2023. No decision has been taken by respondents in view
of which the petitioner is unable to proceed further.
06. In view of the same, respondents/authorities are directed to
conduct preliminary enquiry which would mean to go through the complaint
and find out whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. If cognizable
offence is made out, then the FIR shall be registered. If no cognizable
offence is made out, then the petitioner should be informed of the same. Let
either of the same be done within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
07. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
