Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 9 December, 2016
-( 1 )- W.P. No.4381/2016(S)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
(Vivek Agarwal, J.)
W.P. No.4381/2016
.....Petitioner : Rajendra Prasad Agarwal
Versus
.....Respondents : State of M.P. & Ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(09/12/2016) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 on the complaint of respondent No.4 against the petitioner under Sections 392, 294, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Avam Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (in short "the Act") and for quashing further proceedings in pursuance of the Challan papers submitted by respondent No.3 before the competent Court.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and his name was not mentioned in the FIR initially.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the claim, it is necessary that preliminary objection which has been raised by respondent No.4 is decided i.e. in regard to maintainability of this writ petition for quashing of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and the proceedings consequent to that, so also quashing of order dated 13.6.2016 vide which cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Act.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in W.P.No.7378(W) of 2014
-( 2 )- W.P. No.4381/2016(S) (Indrani Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) decided on 8.9.2014 wherein relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal as reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 held that when effective statutory remedy under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, is available, a writ of certiorari may not be issued. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India as reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337 wherein it has held that where hierarchy of appeals was provided by the statute, a party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief. Similarly, reliance has been placed to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes as reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419 wherein Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of V.S.Pharma Lucknow and others Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. vide its judgment dated 24th July, 2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17812/15, wherein Allahabad High Court also referring to the judgment of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. as reported in AIR 1998 SC 128 held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be resorted to even if petition under Article 226 is held to be not maintainable.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable and petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of filing revision under Section 397/401 or petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of the availability of alternative remedy, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-