[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Nusrat Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8104
1 WP-6963-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6963 of 2026
MRS. NUSRAT KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Sharma - Advocate through VC and Shri Kiran Kumar - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Saxena 0 GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-
"(a) To call for relevant records pertaining to subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;
(b) To allow the present petition and direct the respondents to act upon the complaints so made by
petitioner and register an FIR against respondent no.04, 05 and other persons mentioned in the
complaint accordingly (Annexure P/4 and P/5),
(c) on To declare the marriage certificate issued 29/01/2026 by the Radhika Arya Samaj Mandir
Delhi Annexure P/3 as null and void and not in accordance with law,
(d) To take suitable action against the erring police officers for not taking cognizance upon the
complaints and further more the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to appoint a senior officer of the
some other Police Station to look into the matter and submit a report before the Hon'ble High
Court,
(e) To transfer the case to some other police station for just and fair investigation as it seems that
present police officers had failed to take cognizance in the matter.
(f) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favor of petitioner"
2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8104
2 WP-6963-2026
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 this Court.
3. 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 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) of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8104
3 WP-6963-2026
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."
4. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is not inclined
to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the relief claimed.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner
shall be at liberty to avail the remedy available under law, including filing of
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175 (3) of BNS before the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
