Ghurki Bai vs The State of M.P. and others

Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard. In This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action against respondent No. 6.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6 has got executed a sale deed from the petitioner in respect of the land owned by her by playing fraud with her. Though, the petitioner has submitted complaints to respondent Nos. 3 to 5, yet till today, no action has been taken.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 be directed to take appropriate action on the complaint Annexure P-3, which has been submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the respondent No. 3 namely the Superintendent of Police would lake an action in terms of Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information, he may sent the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police who on being satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In view of submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner makes a complaint to the respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, as provided u/s 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent No. 3 shall take requisite action in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. C.c. as per rules.