Johnson Padamadan vs State Of Kerala

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

The writ petitioner is said to be the President of the Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee.

The  reliefs  sought  in  this  writ  petition  are  the following:

"1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to register a case in the matter of series of corruptions in the Motor Vehicles Dept. during the past and present, to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter, to book the real culprits behind it and to bring them before the court of law to be dealt with under the PC Act.

To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take urgent necessary steps to see that all the forms of mismanagement and corruption in the Motor Vehicles Dept. are curbed forever in the larger interest of the public.

And to pass such other appropriate writs, orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice."

When  the  writ  petition  came  up  for  hearing  on admission after several postings, learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear and there was no representation for the petitioner. Heard learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has alleged that wide range of corrupt practices are being committed in the Motor Vehicles Department. He has made Ext.P23 representation to the Government and Ext.P24 complaint to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) in the matter. His grievance is that no action has been taken by the authorities concerned on the above representation and the complaint.

The writ petition is filed not as a public interest litigation. Therefore, the second relief in the writ petition, which is sought presumably on the basis of Ext.P23 representation made by the petitioner to the Government, cannot be considered.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on Ext.P24 complaint made by him to the Director of VACB regarding the corrupt practices in the Motor Vehicles Department.

What is the remedy of a person on inaction on the part of the police on the information given by him regarding the commission of a cognizable offence? Is it his remedy to rush to the High Court and to file a writ petition seeking action on the complaint given by him to the police?

When information with regard to the commission of any cognizable offence is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant/aggrieved person has right under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Instead of adopting or availing that procedure, he is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct investigation into the complaint filed by him before the police (See All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union v. Union of India: (1996) 11 SCC 582, Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India:(2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P : AIR 2008 SC 907, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277 and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki : (2020) 16 SCC 728).

The  Constitution  Bench  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P : 2014 (2) SCC 1, has held that when information or complaint is received by the police officer concerned with regard to commission of a cognizable offence, he is bound to register FIR in the matter.

However, Lalita Kumari (supra) does not hold that a person aggrieved by the inaction of the police can take a straight recourse to judicial review, without availing the remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (See Fr. Sebastian Vadakkumpadan v. Shine Varghese (2018 (3) KHC 590).

The entire law on the question has been discussed and answered by this Court in Jude Joseph v. Director General of Police (2021 (3) KHC 441).

If the petitioner has got any grievance that the police authorities concerned or the VACB has not taken any action on any complaint made by him with regard to commission of any cognizable offence, his remedy is as stated in the decisions of the Apex Court referred to in paragraph 8 above.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.