IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 13^th OF OCTOBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 21650 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

BIRBAL SINGH GOND S/O SHRI BALLU SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE JHARA, TAHSIL SARAI, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. ALKA SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME

1. DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, REWA, DIVISION REWA

2.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

THE COLLECTOR SINGROULI, DISTRICT

3. SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SINGROULI (MADHYA

4.

PRADESH)

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SD/ST THANA BAIDHAN, 5. DISTRICT SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE

6. STATION SARAI DISTRICT SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission 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:-

“1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents/authorities to take cognizance on the FIR of the petitioner against the accused persons whose name mentioned in the complaint, in the interest of justice.

2. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to give the direction to the respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the accused persons for committing marpeet by using words humiliating against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

3. Any other relief/order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner along with cost of entire litigation.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents/authorities in not taking cognizance on the FIR of the petitioner against the accused persons, who committed marpeet with the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has sent reminder to the Superintendent of Police, Singrauli on 22.01.2022 (Annexure P/7) but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State contended 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 be dismissed at the threshold.

4. Heard 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 b