IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 02^nd OF AUGUST, 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.13577 OF 2022 Between:-

MOHD. WARIS KHAN S/O MOHD. GARIB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O WARD NO.33 GHONGAR, P.S. CITY KOTWALI, TEHSIL HUJUR DISTRICT- REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

….PETITIONER (BY SHRI ATUL SINGH BHARDWAJ – ADVOCATE)

AND

1. S.H.O. POLICE STATION AMAHIYA, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.)

2. TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT- REWA (M.P)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT- REWA (M.P)

4. CHAIRPERSON ANJUMAN SCHOOL URDU/HINDI, BRANCH REWA & MUSLIM WAKF BOARD, 5. MOHD. SAGIR KHAN

6. AKWAR NIZAMI

7. MOHD. ABID KHAN, 8. LIYAKAT ALI, 9. WASEEM RAJA @ KANCHU, 10. GULE AHMAD KHAN, 11. RIYAUJJIDDIN, (ALL RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 11 ARE THE MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE)

......RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G. K. PATEL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission and interim relief this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

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

“7.1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order and accordingly directing registration of FIR against the respondents in the interest of Justice.

7.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the order of Compensation to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

7.3 That, neither the committee nor the member of the committee have raised any objection/complain before the execution of the agreement.

7.4) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

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 and 11. In this regard, petitioner has preferred several representations for registering the FIR against respondent No.4 and 11 but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Per contra learned Panel Lawyer 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 and perused the record.

5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others ((2008)2 SCC 409) has held as under:-

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making t