Reema Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This M.Cr.C. under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the present application U/s 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may kindly be allowed and it is further prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to complete the investigation initiated upon the application Ann. A Colly submitted by the humble applicant in the Interest of Justice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite filing applications/representations before Police Authorities with regard to commission of cognizable offence, no action has been taken till date, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the police authorities, efficacious remedies are available to him under the provisions of the Code.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409] and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 171] that if a person is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR or inaction by the police, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Magistrate concerned by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not by filing a application under Section 528 BNSS directly before this Court.

In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the relief claimed.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy available under law, including filing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Certified copy as per rules.