Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhav Prasad Srivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54221
1 WP-18951-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 21 st OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18951 of 2026
MADHAV PRASAD SRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Atmaram Bain - Dy.G.A. for the respondent No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Alabhya Bajpai - Advocate for the respondent No.5.
Shri Abhishek Pandey - Advocate for the respondent No.6 to 10 through
V.C.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following reliefs :-
“i). Issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ,
direction or order directing the respondents authorities to
look into the matter seriously and to take appropriate action
against the private respondent No.5 to 9, in the interest of
justice.
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the
respondents No.1 to 4 to direct an independent
investigation, accordance with law in the instant matter and
to submit action taken report before this Hon’ble High Court
within a time bound schedule, in the interest of justice.
iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper keeping in view of facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 22-07-2026
12:14:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54221
2 WP-18951-2026
submitted multiple complaints to several police authorities i.e. Respondent No.2
to 4 regarding the fraud committed by respondent No.5 to 9 upon the petitioner in
relation to petitioner’s land, which was acquired by S.E.C.L. for the purpose of
providing employment and compensation. It is submitted that despite submission
of the said complaints, the concerned police authorities have failed to take any
action thereon. It is, therefore, prayed that respondent Nos.2 to 4 be directed to
consider and take appropriate action on the petitioner’s complaints/representations
in accordance with law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the relief prayed in this petition
cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner is having
an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Competent
Magistrate under Section 156(3), 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. against the accused
persons. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others (2008) 2 SCC
409) has held as under:-
“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 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Signing time: 22-07-2026 12:14:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54221 3 WP-18951-2026
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs.
State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further
clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has
made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which
the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is
satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable
steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
14. Section 156 (3) states:
“Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such
an investigation as abovementioned.”
The words `as abovementioned obviously refer to Section 156
(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the
Police Station.
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the
police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where
the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of
investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can
issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can
monitor the same.
16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation
under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the
power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even
after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the
Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the
police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna
AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19).
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to
include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for
ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order
registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the
Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or
is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly
worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such
incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the
view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an
implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order
registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge
of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take
all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers
have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of
the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 22-07-2026
12:14:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54221
4 WP-18951-2026
ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot
investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of
filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply
because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered
by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not
been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under
Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that
is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by
filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing
a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a
writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative
remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.
6. Recently the Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs.
S. Janaki (Cr.A. No.102 of 2011) decided on 20/3/2020, has held as
under:-
“6. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao
Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others ((2016)6 SCC 277), in
which it is observed.
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 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 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
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, the
impugned judgment 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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 22-07-2026
12:14:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:542215 WP-18951-2026
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.”
7. In congruence with the aforesaid well settled position, a Division Bench
of this Court has taken a similar view in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. (2017) 1 MPLJ (Cri) 338.
8. In view of the legal conspectus on the point in issue, as cited above, since
the petitioner has rushed to this Court without availing the alternative efficacious
remedy as envisaged under the Cr.P.C., this petition cannot be entertained.
9. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner that if
so desire, then he can approach the concerning Magistrate under the provisions of
Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. for redressal of his grievance.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 22-07-2026
12:14:12
