Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Ram Kishori Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16468
1 WP-29631-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29631 of 2025
SMT RAM KISHORI PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Man Singh Jadon - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, inter alia, seeking
the following reliefs:-
“i) That, the respondents be commanded to take cognizance
over the notice dated 18.03.2025 contained in Annexure – P/1
in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.
ii) That, the respondents be further commanded to take action
over the complaint made by the petitioner after due
verification in the light of settled legal position held in the
case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 ,
with a further to take action against the respondent no. 6, in
accordance with law, in the interest of justice.
iii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be
issued in the favour of the petitioner.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that against the alleged offence of
fraud committed upon him by the private respondent No. 6, she lodged a
complaint to the police authorities and the police authorities vide notice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16468
2 WP-29631-2025
dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) had called upon the petitioner for recording
her statement. However, till date, no final action has been taken on the
pending complaint of the petitioner and no F.I.R. has been registered.
Accordingly, a prayer is made for direction to the authorities to conclude the
proceedings and register the F.I.R. on the said complaint in question.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the writ
petition and submits that the principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to
the non-registration of an F.I.R on the complaint made by him, which,
according to the petitioner, discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. The counsel for the State submits that issue has been considered and
decided by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Shewata
Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. and Others , reported in 2017 (4) RCR (Cri)
705/2016 SCC Online MP 12224 wherein, while taking into consideration
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs.
State of UP, reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 187 , the Division Bench of this
Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that in the event of non-registration
of F.I.R. by the police authorities, the mandamus for the same is not required
to be issued, and the remedy available to the person aggrieved is to invoke
the provision of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C (now corresponding to Section
173 (3) under BNSS), and therefore, the instant writ petition is not
maintainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a Writ Petition
for direction to the Police to register FIR is maintainable or not ?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16468
3 WP-29631-2025
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs.
Union of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 has held as under :-
“7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the
alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is
a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score.
The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police
authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what
course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held
in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC
582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] and reiterated in Gangadhar case
[(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] the remedy available
is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate.
Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the
views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11
SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7
SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5
SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4
SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Ramesh Kumari case
[(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC
1322] , we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case
[(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC
1322] related to the action required to be taken by the police
when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh
Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR
2006 SC 1322] the basic issue did not relate to the methodology
to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India
Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 404] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006)
2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 :
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] . The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari
case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006
SC 1322] was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
[(2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684 : AIR 2006 SC
3376] . The course available, when the police does not carry out
the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in
issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11
SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [(2004) 7
SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5
SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] and Minu Kumari case
[(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] . The correctSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:164684 WP-29631-2025
position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to
register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that
cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials
fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in
Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in
the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24-2-
2003 with WP (C) No. 530 of 2002 and WP (C) No. 221 of
2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the
aforesaid writ petitions.
8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following
directions:
(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the
police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities
contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the
Code are to be adopted and observed.
(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of
the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the
aforesaid provisions.
(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned,
it is for the Government concerned to deal with the
prayer. The Government concerned would do well to
deal with the matter within three months from the date
of receipt of this order.
(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.”
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State
of Kerala and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 has held as under:-
“41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an
aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of
investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala
fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of the rare case
where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with
the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearlySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:164685 WP-29631-2025
made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even
in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how
the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the
observance of process as provided for in the Code.
42. Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the
information given to them, the informant’s remedy lies under
Sections 190, 200 CrPC, but a writ petition in such a case is not
to be entertained. This Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v.
State of Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768] held : (SCC pp. 774-
75, para 13)“13. When the information is laid with the
police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the
complainant is given power under Section 190
read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the
complaint before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence
and the Magistrate is required to enquire into
the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the
Code. In case the Magistrate after recording
evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of
issuing process to the accused, he is empowered
to direct the police concerned to investigate into
offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to
submit a report. If he finds that the complaint
does not disclose any offence to take further
action, he is empowered to dismiss the
complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In
case he finds that the complaint/evidence
recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is
empowered to take cognizance of the offence
and would issue process to the accused. These
aspects have been highlighted by this Court in
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India
[(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] . It
was specifically observed that a writ petition in
such cases is not to be entertained.”
8 . The Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16468
6 WP-29631-2025
“11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has
a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under
Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154 (3) CrPC by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering
it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved
person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before
the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under
Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can
direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper
investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the
aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The
Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.”
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has held
as under:-
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] , that if a person has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been
registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the
remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach
the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC. If such an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be
registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct
proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion,
if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the
investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the
matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v.
State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR
2008 SC 907] because what we have found in this country is that
the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for
registration of the first information report or praying for a proper
investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:164687 WP-29631-2025
writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions
and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with
such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant
must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate
concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he does so, the
Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration
of the first information report and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the
investigation.
4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu
v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 :
AIR 2008 SC 907] , the impugned judgment [Hemant Yashwant
Dhage v. S.T. Mohite, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2251] of the
High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The
Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation
into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he
deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP
concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper
investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the
investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as
investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any
material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned
Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the
impugned order of the High Court.”
10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadauria
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 20/12/2016 in W.A. No. 247/2016
(Gwalior Bench) has held that a Writ Petition for the purposes of directing
the respondents to lodge the FIR is not maintainable and has held as under:-
“(1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its
statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C can be denied to the informant
/victim for non-availing of alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3),
156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions
enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the the case of
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the
informant/victim.
(2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:164688 WP-29631-2025
Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not
pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for
compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section
154 Cr.P.C without availing alternative remedy under Section
154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.”
11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner
that if so desire, then she can approach the concerning Magistrate under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C / Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for redressal of his grievance.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 06-08-2025
11:13:08