Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 19420 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
VINOD KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI RAM NIWAS
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE RATHARA, P.S. CITY
KOTWALI, REWA, DISTT. REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KAUSTUBH SHANKAR JHA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE POLICE
H EAD Q UARTER S DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S CITY KOTWALI
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PUSHPENDRA MANI TRIPATHI S/O SHRI
SANTOSH MANI TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 44
YEAR S, HATWA P.S MANGAWAN DITT. REWA
PRESENLTY SANJAY NAGAR P.S SAMAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. UPENDRA MANI TRIPATHI S/O SHRI MUNINDRA
PRASAD TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NEHRU NAGAR P.S SAMAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. RINKU PANDEY @ MAMA S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED
SAN
ABOUT 45 YEARS, PADRA PO DHEKHA P.S CIVIL
LINES (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2022.12.16 10:51:00 IST
7. ATUL TIWARI S/O SHRI SHIVENDRA TIWARI,
2
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PADRA PO DHEKHA P.S
CIVIL LINES (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MANGLESHWAR PANDEY S/O SHRI MUNINDRA
PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SONVERSA P.S LAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SANTOSH MANI TRIPATHI S/O LATE SHRI
GYANENDRA MANI TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 65
YEAR S, HATWA P.S MANGAWAN DITT. REWA
PRESENLTY SANJAY NAGAR P.S SAMAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 2 AND 3/STATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 3827/2022 an application seeking deletion of name of respondent no. 6.
The same is allowed.
Let necessary correction be carried out during the course of day. Shri Jha submits that he is aggrieved of the order passed by the C.J.M. Rewa rejecting an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature and, thereafter, revision filed by him before the learned Sessions Judge too has been rejected.
It is submitted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 authorizes him to file private complaint but in view of the observations made by the court below, that right too has taken away.
Signature Not Verified SANThe law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Hema Pathak (Smt) Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.12.16 10:51:00 IST Vs. State of U.P. 2007 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 132 is very clear that dismissal of an 3 application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not a bar on entertaining a private complaint.
Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Hema Pathak (supra), petitioner is free to file a private complaint. It is made clear that any of the observations made while deciding application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the case of the petitioner, if he chooses to file a private complaint.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.12.16 10:51:00 IST