Pankaj Pidiha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Pidiha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2022

Bench: Nandita Dubey

                                     1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                            JABALPUR


                              BEFORE
        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

                ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

               WRIT PETITION No. 3456 of 2022


 Between:-
      PANKAJ PIDIHA,
      S/O GANPAT PRASAD PIDIHA
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: SERVICE
      R/O A.C.C. COLONY, QTR.NO.NTRT 113,
      KEMORE, TEH.VIJAYRAGHAVGARH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....PETITIONER
      (By Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate )

      AND

 1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
      THROUGH COLLECTOR KATNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KATNI
      DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    STATION HOUSE OFFICER
      POLICE STATION VIJAYRAGHAVGARH
      DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    TAHSILDAR VIJAYRAGHAVGARH
      DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) .

5.    SMT. VAISHALI KUMAR ,
      W/O DR. VINOD KUMAR,
                                        2




       R/O SUBHASH CHANDRA WARD NO. 1,
       VIJAYRAGHAVGARH,
       DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    DR. VINOD KUMAR ,
      BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER
      R/O SUBHASH CHANDRA WARD NO. 1,
      VIJAYRAGHAVGARH,
      DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)




                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Prakhar Trivedi, Panel Lawyer)




                  (Heard through Video Conferencing)


                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) That, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents No.1 to 4 to take action against respondents No.5 and 6 and allow the petitioner to remove his Poly House situated at Kharsra No.871/2 and 872, in the interest of justice;

(ii) That, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a suitable direction to respondents No.1 and

2 to take appropriate action on the representation dated 01.02.2022 (Annexure P-5), in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief/order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of this case may pleased be awarded along with the cost of proceedings.

The case of the petitioner is that he has taken a loan of Rs.34,00,000/- for constructing a poly house on Khasra Nos.

871/2 and 872 from the government and he sold out the aforesaid land to respondent No.5 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. In the sale deed it was not mentioned that he also sold out the poly house situated in the aforesaid land. At the time of sale of the land, they entered into an oral agreement that the poly house will be returned to him. After executing the sale deed, when petitioner asked the private respondents to permit him to remove the structure of poly house, they refused to return the same and threatened him to involve in criminal case. He also sent a legal notice to respondent No.5, but no reply has been given. He filed an application before the respondent police authorities and requested them to intervene into the matter, but no action has been taken till date. It is, therefore prayed that respondent authorities may be directed to take action against respondents No.5 and 6.

In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union 4 of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :-

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (supra), that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of alternate his remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."

In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that police is not taking any action against respondents No.5 and 6, hence, in view of the settled position of law, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to her under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT.gn GEETHA NAIR 2022.02.16 17:13:21 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court