IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 39795 of 2025 TARUN KUMAR MAHORE Versus DAYARAM CHORIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri V.K.Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Call the entire original record of his for kind perusal.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing to the concerned court of Human Rights Act/Session Judge Chhindwara to decide the matter from the court according to notification and Human Right Act, 1993.

(iii) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.3005/2023 against the violation of human rights of the petitioner acted by the respondents. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.04.2023 has disposed off the aforesaid petition with a direction to decide the review filed before the Court of Human Rights. In pursuance to the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has filed revision application on 24.04.2023 before the Court of Human Rights Act/Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The matter taken up for consideration and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents' counsel appears on behalf of the respondents before the Court below. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the court heard the matter and granted time to the respondents' counsel to file reply in the matter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court and made a prayer to call for the record with respect to the complaint made by the petitioner. The petitioner submits written argument before the court, however, the respondents despite repeated opportunities being taken from 14.06.2024 till 12.08.2025 have not submitted any written arguments in the matter. The petitioner submitted an application before the court to consider the matter under Section 30 of the Human Rights Protection Act, 1993, along with the application the reply to the amended complaint was also filed. The petitioner filed rejoinder. After a considerable delay, the respondents submitted their reply to the objection of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the court below is not considering the matter and put a query to the petitioner that why the petitioner has not filed any application before the Court of JMFC which is in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3005/2023 and also contrary to the provisions of Human Rights Act and notification dated 09.08.1996. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. From the perusal of the record, it appears that this petition is filed on the ground that the action of the respondents is in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3005/2023 as well as the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. The record indicates that there is a criminal case pending in RCT No.450/2020 before the learned JMFC against which the petitioner has preferred a revision which is pending consideration.

5. The petitioner has filed writ petition on earlier occasion before this Court being Writ Petition No.3005/2023 and vide order dated 11.04.2023, the said writ petition was disposed off permitting the petitioner to file review of the order dated 12.03.2021 and directed the Court to decide the same in accordance with law. Once there is already a direction given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, no mandamus can be issued directing the revisional Court to decide the matter in accordance wi