Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swami Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 May, 2017
WP-7477-2017
(SWAMI PRASAD YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
19-05-2017
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.K. Kushwaha, learned panel lawyer for
respondents/State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for following reliefs:-
(i)To issue suitable writ/directions to the respondent no. 3 for a fair enquiry of the dispute and till such enquiry is concluded no action be taken against the petitioner and others on the basis of the impugned F.I.R.
(ii)To alternatively issue suitable writ/directions for quashing the impugned F.I.R. as the same has been registered by the respondent no. 4 which infact had no jurisdiction as the incident was alleged to have taken place within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 5.
(iii)To issue suitable writ/directions for investigation into the conduct of the respondent no. 4 and direct for suitable disciplinary action against him.
(iv)To issue any other suitable writ/directions deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the petition.
(v)To award costs of the petition.
From perusal of the said reliefs, it reveals that the petitioner has claimed relief for quashment of F.I.R. which is registered against him and also praying for an interim relief that till the decision of the writ petition, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.
From perusal of the reliefs as well as the averments made in the writ petition, it reveals that the petitioner claim the relief for quashment of the F.I.R. Against the said relief, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The judgement relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128 has not applicable in the present case, as the facts of the case are distinguishable. Thus, I do not find any reason to entertain into the said writ petition as the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE ashish