Smt. Asha Pal vs State Of M.P. & Ors.

Heard.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-

''याचिकाकर्तागण प्रार्थना करते है कि याचिकाकर्तागण की याचिका स्वीकार किया जाकर प्रतियाचिकर्तागण क्र. 4 व 5 को निर्देशित किया जावे कि वे याचिकाकर्ता के जीवन में किसी प्रकार की कोई परेशानी उत्पन्न न करें तथा प्रतियाचिकाकर्ता क्र.1 लगायत 3 को यह निर्देशित किया जावे कि वह भविष्य में याचिकाकर्ता को किसी भी प्रकार से परेशान न करे तथा उसको स्वतंत्र जीवन यापन करने हेतु सुरक्षा प्रदान करावे।''

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had moved a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Gwalior (Annexure P/1) but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon, therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred for direction to the Police authorities to take appropriate action on the basis of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that in case the Police authorities are not taking any action, 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & others 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338).

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.

This writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.