Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raavi Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896
1 WP-17611-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17611 of 2025
RAAVI SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 73/2025, whereby the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in UNCR No. 211/2023, through which the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 26.03.2023, at about 03:15 PM, a gambling den was being operated on the bank of the Kwari River in village Rohanda, where several persons had gathered. The complainant and his father, Shri Prayag Singh Tomar, were also present there. At that time, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 2 WP-17611-2025 Constable Abhishek Rajawat and Constable Devendra Jatav, posted at Police Station Ater, District Bhind, arrived on a Pulsar motorcycle in civil dress. Upon seeing the said constables, chaos ensued and people started fleeing. The said two constables chased the complainant's father, Shri Prayag Singh Tomar, and the complainant also followed them from behind. The complainant saw that on the bank of the Kwari River, the said constables were quarrelling with his father and forcibly snatching money from him. When the complainant's father objected, Constable Abhishek Rajawat and Constable Devendra Jatav pushed Shri Prayag Singh Tomar into the Kwari River. When the complainant came forward to rescue his father, the said constables fired shots at the complainant from their revolvers with an intention to kill him. Due to drowning in the river, the complainant's father died. The complainant immediately called the police on 100 number and the police reached the spot; however, the dead body of the complainant's father was recovered only on 28.03.2023. In relation to the said incident, the complainant immediately submitted complaints to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ater, and to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, but the Station House Officer merely gave assurances that he would not provide any receipt of the complaint and action would be taken against the constables. Subsequently, a receiving was obtained from the office of the Superintendent of Police through SDOP Smt. Poonam Thapa. Thereafter, the complainant became engaged in the funeral rites and last ceremonies of his father. The complainant was informed that both constables had been suspended and an FIR would be registered shortly; however, no FIR was registered against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 3 WP-17611-2025 said constables in respect of the murder of the complainant's father. When till 24.04.2023, no FIR was registered, the complainant sent a written complaint on 24.03.2023 through registered post to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ater, District Bhind, and also sent a complaint through registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, but still no FIR was registered by any authority. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the JMFC Court, Bhind. In the said matter, the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, found that the two constables were illegally present at the place of occurrence and accordingly suspended them. The learned JMFC Court called for a report from the police, in compliance of which the police submitted its report before the Court on 25.10.2023. Thereafter, the learned JMFC Court, by order dated 12.08.2024, dismissed the complainant's application holding that from the examination of Call Detail Records (CDR), it is clear that the father and son were present at different locations and were not together at the place of incident. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 73/2024 before the learned Sessions Court, Bhind. For early disposal thereof, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4435/2025 before this Court, in which by order dated 07.02.2025, this Court directed the Sessions Court to decide the matter within a period of three months. The learned Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 07.05.2025 affirmed the order of the JMFC Court and dismissed the petitioner's Criminal Revision. Aggrieved by both the orders filed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 4 WP-17611-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present matter, the learned subordinate court, by its order dated 12.05.2023, at the very first instance, called for an investigation report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which action is contrary to law. This is because, under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term "inquiry" is to be conducted only by the Court, whereas the police, in any case, can undertake only "investigation." Further, under Section 174 of the Code, the police are empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry (merg inquiry) prior to registration of an FIR, only in cases relating to suicide, unnatural deaths, or similar matters. Moreover, in a complaint presented under Section 200 of the Code, at the stage of Section 202, for the purpose of determining whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding, the Magistrate may either himself inquire into the case or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit; however, no such direction for investigation shall be issued where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, or where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present have been examined on oath under Section 200. In the present case, neither the complainant nor any witness was examined by the learned court below. Furthermore, since the case pertains to the offence of murder and is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, even on this ground an inquiry by the police could not have been directed. Despite this, the learned trial court proceeded to do so, which is in clear violation of statutory provisions. In this regard, reliance was placed upon Suresh Chand Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 5 WP-17611-2025 Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 571, paragraphs 8 and 9, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a complaint relating to a cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no reason to waste time and should immediately forward the matter to the police for investigation, as the responsibility for investigating cognizable offences and collecting evidence lies with the police.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant did not present a complaint petition under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned subordinate court; rather, he submitted an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of an FIR in respect of his case. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, paragraphs 11, 25, 26, and 27 , in cases of cognizable offences, the court ought to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. However, prior to passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Court below called for the police version in the form of an inquiry report, and after evaluating the facts stated in the application and in the inquiry report, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence along with his deceased father; therefore, it did not appear proper to allow the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. It is further submitted that the revisional court, while considering the petitioner's revision petition, was required to determine whether the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court was legal or illegal. At the stage of considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR, the Court is required only to see whether a cognizable Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 6 WP-17611-2025 offence is disclosed from the application and the complaint made to the police. Calling for the police version and conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence before passing an order is not contemplated by law and is contrary to law. The Court was also required to consider whether the same police, which is not registering an FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, can submit any inquiry report before the court in support of registration of the FIR.
6. It is further submitted that in Ramesh Kumari v. State, 2006 (2) MPHT 308 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is not legally permissible for a respondent to assert, prior to the registration of an FIR, that the complaint filed by the petitioner has been found to be not genuine during inquiry. The genuineness and credibility of a complaint concerning any cognizable offence can be determined only after the FIR has been registered. Genuineness and credibility of a complaint are not prerequisites for the registration of an FIR. Under the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., an FIR must be registered for any cognizable offence.
7. It is further submitted that whether, in the case of a cognizable offence, the police are required to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matter before registering an FIR was conclusively settled by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187 , wherein the Full Bench explicitly held that the police cannot conduct an inquiry prior to registering an FIR in the case of a cognizable offence. Despite this clear legal position, prior to issuance of direction for registration of FIR by the learned trial court, the police Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 7 WP-17611-2025 conducted an inquiry, which is contrary to law and this fact had not been considered even by the revisional Court. Accordingly, both impugned orders passed by Courts below are in violation of the law and deserve to be set- aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there are concurrent findings of the courts below against the petitioner. The incident in question occurred on 26.03.2013, and the first complaint was filed by the petitioner on 28.03.2013. In this initial complaint, the petitioner alleged that Constable Abhishek Rajawat and Constable Devendra Jatav had pushed his father into the Kwari River. The same allegations were reiterated in the complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the court below. After filing the said application, the Court issued notice to the concerned police station, following which the police submitted an inquiry report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Learned State counsel, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ramyash Tiwari v. State of M.P., (2013) 2 MPHT 521, submits that it is well-settled that before passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to call for the status report. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the above, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 8 WP-17611-2025
10. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, and the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in connection with his application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core grievance of the petitioner pertains to the refusal of the courts below to direct registration of an FIR in respect of the alleged offence of murder committed by the two constables, Abhishek Rajawat and Devendra Jatav, which ultimately resulted in the death of his father.
11. It is apparent from the record that the incident occurred on 26.03.2023, and the petitioner had promptly approached the police authorities with complaints regarding the same. Despite repeated communications, no FIR was registered, and the petitioner was compelled to approach the learned JMFC under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is settled law that in the case of a cognizable offence, the role of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to ensure that an FIR is registered, and the Magistrate cannot engage in an evaluation of the merits or call for a police report to determine the credibility of the complaint prior to registration of the FIR.
12. The law is now well settled that registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases, except in limited categories carved out in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187. The Constitution Bench in the said judgment authoritatively held that police officers cannot embark upon an inquiry to test the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations before registration of FIR in cases of cognizable offences, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 9 WP-17611-2025 and the genuineness or credibility of the information is to be tested only after registration of FIR during investigation.
13. The observations made in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (supra), Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), and Ramesh Kumari v. State (supra) clearly establish that the genuineness and credibility of the complaint are not to be examined by the police or the Magistrate before registering an FIR. The Court below, in the present case, have deviated from this legal position by relying on a police inquiry report and conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence prior to passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the settled legal position.
14. Further, the petitioner had not filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and there was no scope for the learned JMFC to undertake an inquiry that went beyond the statutory mandate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The reliance placed by the State on Ramyash Tiwari (supra), cannot be pressed to justify the approach of the courts below, as the factual matrix in the present matter relates to a cognizable offence of murder triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police prior to FIR registration is impermissible under Sections 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C.
14. In light of the foregoing and in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders of the courts below are not legally sustainable. The matter is accordingly remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, with a direction to decide the petitioner's Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3896 10 WP-17611-2025 application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law on the basis of contents of the application and to pass a reasoned order.
15. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in UNCR No.311/2023 and the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.R. No.73/2024 are set aside, and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind is directed to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/3/2026 1:51:36 PM