Sunaina vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(MP) 856

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 856

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Sunaina – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Vishal Shrivastava - Advocate for The Petitioner, for the Appellant; Proxy Counsel Ms. Soumya Maru, P.L. for State, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

^^¼7-1½ ;g fd] jsLiksUMsUV dzekad 1 yxk;r 3 dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd jsLiksUMsUV dzekad 4 yxk;r 8 ds fo:˜ dk;Zokgh dj muds fo:˜ rRdky ,Q-vkb-vkj- ntZ djs^^a

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents/Police Authority in not registering the FIR against respondents No.4 to 7. Directions may be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 to register the FIR as prayed.

3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State contends that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that it is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the present petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(MP) 856

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARISunaina – AppellantVersusState of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Sunaina – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent