Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55785 of 2023 BETWEEN:- RITESH TIWARI S/O SHRI RAJENDRA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O H NO 255 MANMOHAN NAGAR P.S. GOHALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPLICANT (BY SHRI SOURABH SHARMA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. D.G.P. PHQ, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JABALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION GOHALPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. SHRI KISHOR RAWAT R/O 563 PINK HOUSE, RAJENDRA PRASAD WARD, PS GOHALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 6. SHRI INDU TIWARI, R/O 563 PINK HOUSE RAJENDRA PRASAD WARD, PS GOHALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SWATANTRA PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER) This application coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:
Sourabh Kumar Sharma,Advocate General
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite moving a complaint disclosing cognizable office before the In-Charge Police Station in terms of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., no action has been taken. Thereafter the petitioner has also complied with requirement of law in terms of Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. by moving a representation before the Superintendent of Police, but the Superintendent of Police has also not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, submits that in the event of complying with the requirement of law in terms of Section 154 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., the Police is bound to register a case after holding preliminary inquiry. If commission of cognizable offence is found to have been committed, then there is no escape but to lodge an FIR. In case no cognizable offence is found to have been committed, complainant needs to be communicated by the Police within a reasonable time of seven days. In the instant case, the parameters laid down in paragraphs 20 and 21 of Lalitha Kumar's case (supra), have not been followed.
At this stage, this petition can be disposed of by directing the In-Charge Police of the concerned Police Station to consider the complaint under Section 154 (1) of Cr.P.C. and after undertaking preliminary inquiry/investigation, the In-charge Police Station would determine as to whether cognizable offence is made out or not. If cognizable offence is found to have been committed, then In-charge Police Station shall proceed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE b (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE b
