IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 1^st OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.23883 OF 2022 Between:-

VIMAL PATEL S/O GAYA PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK R/O VILLAGE JAMUNIYA TAHSIL TAMIYA DISTRICT- CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

….PETITIONER (BY SHRI DEVRAJ VISHWAKARMA – ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF M.P., THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. THE SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MAHULJHIR, DISTRICT- CHHINDWARA (M.P)

......RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI G. P. SINGH, 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:-

“i) To call for entire record from the office of respondent No.2 and 3 relating to steps been taken and investigation conducted in relation to the written complaint submitted by the petitioner.

ii) To direct respondent No.2 and 3 to take appropriate action on the written complaint submitted by the petitioners and registered F.I.R. against the accused Kamal Kishre s/o Ramesh and Manje Ahake S/o Vishram r/o Gram Jamunia, P.S. Mahuljhir Teh Tamiya, Distt Chhindwara iii) To direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 decide the written complaint in light of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC

1 iv) Any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper may also be granted”

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 the accused persons. In this regard, petitioner has preferred several representations for registering the FIR against accused persons 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 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 the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, suc