IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA ON THE

24th OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No.18731 of 2024 RAMSINGH THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ............................................................................................................................................

Appearance:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Swapnil Ganguly – Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State.

............................................................................................................................................

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking following relief(s):-

7.1 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application come complaint of the petitioner produced as Annexure-P/1, in the light of judgment of Apex court Lalita Kumar Vs. Govt. of U.P. Reported in 2014 (2) of SCC Page No.1

7.2 Issue any other writ order for direction and this Hon’ble Court beings fit and proper.

2. It is mentioned in the Writ Petition that petitioner has approached the respondents for registration of FIR but no action has been taken.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the State that it is well established principle of law that a Writ Petition for registration of FIR is not maintainable because petitioner has an efficacious remedy of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR approaching the Trial Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (Section

223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the State as well as contentions raised in the Writ Petition.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a Writ Petition for direction to the Police to register FIR is maintainable or not? 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 has held as under :-

“7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] and reiterated in Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] , we find that the view Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] . The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684 : AIR 2006 SC 3376]