IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 17^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No.25901 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

AKHILESH KUMAR CHAURASIYA S/O SHRI SHIVRAM CHAURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACTING R/O VILLAGE KATRA POST SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATEL - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PANNA THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE IN CHARGE OFFICER OF THE POLICE SALEHA SHRI ABHISHEK PANDEY OFICIATING INSPECTOR POLICE STATION SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHIVRAJ SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BHAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MUTUMURU POLICE STATION SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. HARENDRA TRIPATHI S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O SALEHA MANDAL PRESIDENT BJP SALEHA PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GULABKALI PATEL – 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:-

“(i) That, Crime No.272/2022 which has been registered by the Police Station Saleha at the behest of respondent no.4 in this case the Superintendent of Police himself should investigate and take action, instructions should be given, in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 S.P.Panna got an independent enquiry regarding the subject matter of annexure P/8 dated 7.10.2022 with the senior Superintendent of Police, in the interest of justice.

(iii) That, this Hon’ble court may kindly issue a writ of Mandamus in the case for the arbitrary and malicious action taken by the respondent no.3 in the discharge of duty and for providing protection to the respondents no.4 and 5, departmental inquiry should be punished by taking departmental action.

(iv) Any other reliefs deems fit and proper in according to facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not taking action on the FIR against respondents No.4 and 5 with regard to ‘marpeet’ done by respondents no.4 and 5 with the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents no.4 and 5 are politically influential persons, therefore, no action is being taken against the respondents/accused. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Per contra learned Govt. 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 dismissed at the threshold.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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