AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J
The reliefs sought in this writ petition are the following:
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding maintenance, as per Projects No.67/17,82/17 and 160/17 as part of the Annual Project 2016-17 and register criminal case against the then Panchayath Committee members and other persons involved in the project under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P8 representation within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
iii. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."
The petitioner had made Ext.P8 complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), the fifth respondent herein, regarding the corrupt practices committed in connection with the implementation of the projects approved by the third respondent Panchayat for the installation of street lights in the Panchayat. It is alleged by the petitioner that, instead of inviting e-tenders, open tenders were invited for conducting the work and that the tender submitted by a private company quoting higher rate was accepted, ignoring the tenders which quoted lower rates.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Director, VACB has not taken any legal action on the basis of Ext.P8 complaint.
Though the second respondent has filed a counter statement, the fifth respondent (the Director, VACB) has not filed any statement.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P : (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held that, when information regarding a cognizable offence is received by the police officer concerned, he is bound to register a first information report. It has also been held that, in cases where there is doubt as to whether there has been commission of any cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted only to ascertain whether the information or the complaint received reveals commission of such an offence.
In the instant case, there is no material to show that, when Ext.P8 complaint was received by the Director, VACB, he had taken any action on that complaint as enjoined in Lalita Kumari (supra). If the Director, VACB was not the police officer concerned to take such action, he should have forwarded the complaint to the police officer concerned for taking such action. There are no materials placed before this Court by the fifth respondent to show that he had taken any action on Ext.P8 complaint.
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).
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).
In Michael Varghese v. Pinarayi Vijayan : 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2794, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"However intricate the magnitude and the nature of the offences alleged, the Code of Criminal Procedure has envisaged a procedure to be followed and, therefore, the same cannot be given a go-by, and a writ petition is not the proper remedy".
In Subramaniam (supra), the Apex Court observed as follows:
"In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18/09/2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary".
The discussion above would show that none of the reliefs sought in this writ petition can be granted.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressing his grievances with regard to the allegations in Ext.P8, irrespective of any departmental enquiry conducted or the result of any such enquiry.