JUBER KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of directions to the respondents/authorities to take action on her complaint.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cognizable offence has been committed by respondent No.3. It is submitted that after filing of the complaint by the petitioner, no action has been taken by respondents/authorities. It is incumbent upon the respondents/authorities to register an FIR, if cognizable offence is disclosed and if there is non- cognizable offence then also petitioner is to be informed of the same so that the petitioner can resort to the other remedies available in accordance with law. It is further submitted that Sec. 173 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 lays down that every information given relating to commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed is to be registered by Officer In- Charge of a Police Station, if offence is cognizable in nature and punishable between 3-7 years. Preliminary enquiry is to be conducted within a period of 14 days and if there is a prima facie case, then action is to be taken. It is also submitted that complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 13/1/2026 [Annexure P/2]. The competent authority is sitting tight over the matter and is not taking any decision to lodge information or to take any other action. It is hence submitted that necessary directions may be issued.

(3.) Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is having alternate remedy, hence he may approach appropriate authorities raising his grievance in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.