[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4740
1 MCRC-2739-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2739 of 2026
SATENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Arshad Ali M. Haque - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following relief:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the court may kindly be pleased to
allow this application of applicant under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
Fair investigation and also directed to submit additional challan
with respect to u/s 117 of Bhartiya Nayay Sahinta is equivalent of
Indian penal code section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous heard)
in connection with the crime No. 91/25 p.s. Endori District Bhind
whereby offence was registered against the respondent No. 5 to 8
offences U/s 115(2), 296, 351(3), 3(5), 118(1) of B.N.S. 2023."
So far as the prayer relating to fair investigation is concerned, it is
well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
[(2008) 2 SCC 409] and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC
171] that if a person is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR or inaction by
the police, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Magistrate concerned
by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175 (3) of BNS and not
by filing a application under Section 482 of Cr.PC./528 BNSS directly before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4740
2 MCRC-2739-2026
this Court.
In the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to
include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for
ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order
registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if
the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been
done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will
include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to
do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which
would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when
any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly
included in the grant, even without special mention, every power
and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself
ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly
also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means
as are essentially necessary to its execution.
19.XXX
20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply
determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is
necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were
specifically written therein.
21.XXX
22.XXX
23.XXX
24.XXX
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find
that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not
being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ
petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the
opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and
should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate
the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4740
3 MCRC-2739-2026
154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police
officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned
Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered
by the police station his first remedy is to approach the
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other
police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite
approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to
in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the
High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ
petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so
many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation
to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot
investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the
practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has
not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper
investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance,
the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned
police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative
remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally
well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court
should not ordinarily interfere."
In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is not inclined
to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS for the
purpose of directing fair investigation, and the petitioner is relegated to avail
the remedies available under the Code before the appropriate forum.
Coming to the second limb of the prayer, whereby the petitioner seeks
a direction to the police to submit an additional challan by incorporating the
offence under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it is well settled
that the power of investigation, including the decision as to which offences
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4740
4 MCRC-2739-2026
are made out and whether a charge-sheet is to be filed or not, lies exclusively
within the domain of the investigating agency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
i n M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649 and D.
Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari, (2009) 10 SCC 488
has categorically held that courts cannot supervise or control the manner of
investigation, nor can they compel the police to arrest an accused or to file a
charge-sheet in a particular manner or for particular offences. Any such
direction would amount to unwarranted interference with the statutory
functions of the investigating agency.
In view of above, while this Court refrains from issuing any direction
affecting the manner, scope or outcome of the investigation, it is observed
that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the manner of investigation
or any alleged misconduct or omission on the part of the police officials, it
shall be open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Superintendent of
Police or the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall consider such grievance
and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
