Shankar Pandey And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued

by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being

represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

“1. The respondent No. 1 and 2 may be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners;

The respondent No. 1 and 2 may be further directed not to register any FIR on instance of the respondent No. 3 without conducting enquiry in its complaint dated

17.03.2020.

Pass any other or further which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case.â€​

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that owing to false complaint being made by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner endangering

life and liberty and is trying to convert the civil proceedings into the criminal proceedings, this petition has been filed. It is further submitted that

respondent No. 3 is habitual of lodging false case on earlier occasion as he has made false complaint to the other persons for which, they were forced

to face criminal proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities may be directed to look into the matter prior to registration of case

against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V.

College, Bhatinda etc. Vs. The State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1731 C, ommissioner of Income tax, Bombay City II, Bombay

Vs. M/s Jadavji Narsidas and Co., reported in AIR 1963 SC 149 7as well as Delhi, Development Authority Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, reported in

AIR 1995 SC 1 and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect and in similar circumstances has granted

protection to the petitioner in those cases. It is further submitted that similar relief may be extended to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions made by the petitioner and has argued that present petition has been filed only

on the apprehension and no cause of action is available to the petitioner. It is further argued that if the petitioner is having apprehension for registering

the false case, then he is having right to file an anticipatory bail. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 is to be considered by the

respondents/authorities, therefore, having no cause of action pointed out by the petitioner, the petition is premature and meritless. He prays for

dismissal of the present petition.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the fact that as on date, no cause of action is pointed out by the

petitioner and the judgments relied upon are not applicable in the facts of the present case, the petition being meritless and devoid of substance is

hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.