[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9910
1 WP-9251-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9251 of 2026
BRAJESH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Samadhiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-
"1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
petition and Direct the respondents to register an FIR on the
petitioner's complaint dated 10.02.2026 against Akash @ Bittu
under appropriate provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2) That this Hon'ble Court may also direct an independent
and fair investigation by a senior police officer / CID, ensuring
impartiality and fairness;
3) That this Hon'ble Court may also Call for a status report
from the respondents regarding the investigation in the matter;
4) Pass any other order or direction deemed fit in the interest
of justice.
5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9910
2 WP-9251-2026
facts and circumstances may also kindly be allowed.
6) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded."
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9910
3 WP-9251-2026
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9910
4 WP-9251-2026
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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9910
5 WP-9251-2026
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
pwn*
