Lokesh Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Others

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

By filing this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is working as Journalist and on account of misappropriation of public funds the petitioner has made a complaint to CM Helpline against RTO Check Post In charge Dev Chand Shakya, Head Constable Surendra Tomar and Constable Pancham Singh Chauhan on 06.03.2020 and has also applied for certain information against them under RTI. In view of aforesaid, those persons are having enmity with the petitioner and they are compelling him to withdraw the complaint.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri be directed to provide CC TV footage, which are restored in the CC TV camera installed in RTO Check Post Khurai Kadora, Shivpuri and he has also submitted that an independent and fair enquiry be conducted by appointing any independent, honest and active Police Officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P to enquire the facts and submit the final report.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that with regard to Annexure P/1, it appears that CC TV footage is to be used against those persons for blackmailing them. Such direction can not be issued. However, since Annexure P/1 has been submitted to S.P. Shivpuri for lodging the case against culprits, in such situation, this Court can not direct the authorities to lodge FIR and take action, for which the petitioner is having remedy under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. to file a compliant before the Magistrate as well as approaching the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

This issue is no more res integra and the issue has been decided by a Division Bench at the Principal Seat Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.709/2016 vide order dated 13.10.2016 by which the appeal has been dismissed with liberty to the appellant to take recourse by approaching the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction by filing a private complaint and similar view has been taken by the principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.A. No.658/2017 vide order dated 08/08/2017 following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338. In the case of Shweta Bhadoriya (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed 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. 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."

In another case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8569/2015 had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 04.11.2016 holding that the writ petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as in the order dated 13.10.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.709/2016 and order dated 04.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.8569/2015 (supra). The directions contained therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case with full force.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or to resort to other remedy as available under the Cr.P.C.

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.