SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

ON THE 28th OF MAY, 2024

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21012 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

RUBY GOYAL W/O SUNIL GOYAL, AGED-38 YEARS, R/O

ANGRE COLONY LALA KA BAZAR NEAR JAIN BHAWAN

GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT

(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE

POLICE STATION THROUGH P S LASHKAR

GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

SUPERINTENDENT

OF

POLICE GWALIOR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

3.

STATION

HOUSE

OFFICER POLICE

STATION

LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

SHALINI VAYEBHASE W/O LATE SHRI ARJUNRAO

VAYEBHASE R/O NEAR SHANIDEV TEMPLE,

TARAGANJ,

LASHKAR,

GWALIOR

(MADHYA

PRADESH)

5.

PRABHAT VAYEBHASE S/O LATE SHRI ARJUNRAO

VAYEBHASE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

Advocates:
Siddharth Sharma,Advocate General

ORDER

The present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P. has been filed for direction to the respondents authorities to lodge the FIR against the accused persons and take appropriate action on the written complaint submitted.

2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner is not maintainable in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., 2008 AIR SCW 309 and Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. And others, 2017 (1) MPJR 247 and the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction under the provisions of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable.

3. Countering the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the remedy available to the petitioner is before competent Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, but this Court by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can direct the police authorities to conduct the investigation properly on the complaint so made by the petitioner.

4. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the issue with regard to directing the police officials to register FIR, conduct proper investigation, to make arrest of the accused persons and file challan before the competent court of jurisdiction is no more res integra. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, the issue is very well settled that such type of directions can only be given by the Judicial Magistrate of competent criminal jurisdiction under the provisions of section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5 . In the light of the aforesaid, this petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for redressal of his grievance and the Trial Court is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. C.C. as per Rules. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 29-May-24 5:55:53 PM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top