Jitendra Gajbhiye vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent authorities to register an FIR against respondent No.8.

The case of the petitioner is that he is an agent of the Samiti namely, Janta Shakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sivanghat, district Balaghat and has collected huge amount from the account holders of the Samiti on the direction of respondent No.8, who is the Director of the aforesaid Samiti. After collecting huge amount, respondent No.8 has fraudulently closed the Samiti and did not permit the account holders to withdraw the money deposited by them. The account holders are making pressure on the petitioner for withdrawal of the money deposited by them. The petitioner has made several written complaints to the S.P. and Collector, Balaghat but no action has been taken against respondent No.8. It is, therefore, prayed that S.P. Balaghat be directed to enquire into the matter and register an FIR against respondent No.8

In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :-

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P.(supra), 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 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 investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) 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.

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."

In view of the law laid down in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra), this writ petition has no merits is dismissed accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedy available to him under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed.