Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Nikita Kukreja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2016
1
W.A. No.159/2016
27.04.2016
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
By this intra-court appeal, the appellant is challenging the
order dated 29/03/2016, passed in W.P. No.338/2016 by which
the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition by holding
that the police authorities were justified in conducting a
preliminary enquiry in the matter and have rightly arrived at a
conclusion that it is purely a civil dispute and a civil litigation is
pending before the authorities.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19/10/2015 a complaint
was made by the appellant to the police authorities that a
cognizable offence viz preparation of forged will (Lt. Shri
Ramesh Kukreja) and forged relinquishment deeds of appellant
has been prepared. No action on the aforesaid complaint was
taken by the police against the respondent No.6 and others. It
is also stated that about 22 to 30 criminal cases have been registered against him, but till date no action has been taken against respondent No.6. Out of 22 to 30 criminal cases, 8 cases were registered against him for preparation of forged documents. He is a habitual offender. The notice was also 2 issued to the police authorities to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. [2013(5) MPHT 336] and offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 be registered against him.
Inspite of number of reminders and legal notice, no FIR has been registered. The appellant challenged the inaction by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondent / police authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter and register an FIR.
A reply has been filed by the State, stating therein that the respondents have conducted the prelimiary enquiry in the matter and they have arrived at a conclusion that no offence has been made out. The learned writ court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P(Supra), came to the conclusion that preliminary enquriy has been conducted in the matter and the police authorities have arrived at a conclusion that it is purely a civil dispute and dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to various documents like complaint, legal notice, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. (Supra), order passed by the learned Division Bench in the case of Dr. Subodh Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.(W.A. 3 No.440/2015) on 20/01/2016 and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
It is not in dispute that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, the police authorities came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. A civil suit in respect of property in question is very much pending between the parties and relinquishment deed and will is the subject- matter and an application which was preferred under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. for search and the same has been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Criminal Revision(Cri.Rev. No.1515/2015) is pending before this Court. The authorities were justified in conducting a preliminary enquiry and came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the learned writ court has not committed any legal error in dismissing the writ petition. Appellant / complainant is having remedy to file a complaint before the Magistrate of Competent Jurisdiction for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, who will pass an appropriate order therein as to whether any cognizable offence is made or not. Lodging of complaint is basic right of every citizen. If concerned police 4 after preliminary enquiry refuses to register the complaint, then the Magistrate could direct the police to register the complaint and investigate.
With the aforesaid liberty Writ Appeal No. 159/2016 is dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Vivek Rusia)
Judge Judge
pn/