Ankur Agrawal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allegations are made that the respondent No. 5, a Police Officer, is demanding money from the shopkeepers and if such a demand is not fulfilled, he takes coercive steps against such shopkeepers. The petitioner is the brother of one of the shopkeeper and when the brother of the petitioner denied to fulfill the demand of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner was taken to the Police Station where he was beaten brutally. A complaint in writing in this respect is made, but no action is taken by the police, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It has become a common practice that if a complaint is made with respect to the allegations of improper act of Police officers, normally no action is taken by the higher authorities expeditiously. As a result, the complainants start running to this Court by of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for alleged violation of Fundamental Rights. However, it is not possible for this Court to convert itself into an investigating agency and to entertain such complaints. It is advisable that the higher authorities of the police should look into such complaints and to inquire into the merits of the same and to take action in accordance to law, if any fact is found prima facie proved.

The other aspect is that if a complaint is made or a representation is filed before the higher authorities with respect to any act done by the police authorities or any other authorities and no action is taken, the complainant has a right to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction by way of filing a private complaint under the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Apex Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, if approached by a complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to any cognizable case, he is required to record the statement and exercise the powers available under Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate if, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate the offence under Chapter-XII of the Code and to submit a report to the Magistrate. In case it is found by the Magistrate that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a case, if the grievance is raised, a proper procedure is prescribed to investigate such grievance. Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

The Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Others, of the report has held thus:

Can the High Court set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on the information received by it without recording the reasons that the information received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence? Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences, which cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of anonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot be converted into station houses.

In view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court, it is not necessary for this Court to exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Magistrate, if he still feels aggrieved by any action of the respondents-authorities, under the procedure laid-down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.