Mukeshbhai Khodabhai Madhad vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.M. Thaker, J.—Heard Ms. G.R. Vijayalakshmi, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Raval, learned APP, for the respondent-State. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:-

8 (A) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to register the complaint made by the petitioner and to investigate into the same;

(B) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to place on record of this Honourable Court the steps taken by them pursuant to the filing of the complaint by the petitioner with Savarkundla Police Station; till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(C)...

1.1 The petitioner seems to have submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and concerned police authorities alleging offence under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the complaint was submitted in March-2012, it has not been registered as FIR and investigation has not commenced.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has admitted the fact that the petitioner has not taken any steps to approach the Court of concerned learned Magistrate with the complaint and has not filed the complaint in the Court of learned Magistrate. Despite this, learned advocate for the petitioner wants that this Court should exercise powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code to direct the police authorities to register the complaint as FIR.

2.2 The said request runs counter to the observations by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matters of Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

Having regard to the aforesaid factual aspects, at this stage, it is appropriate and relevant to take into account the observations by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case between Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein, the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 thus:-

4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant [can u/s 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay] the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate 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 into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds 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. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and [could] issue process to the accused.

These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees'' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, SCC p. 583, para 4. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The above position was again highlighted in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar and Hari Singh v. State of U.P.

Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case and reiterated in Gangadhar case the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case, Minu Kumari case and Ramesh Kumari case, we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kumari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar. The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements u/s 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24-2-2003 with WP A(c) No. 530 of 2002 and WP A(c) No. 221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions.

The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:

(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.

(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.

(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

3.1 The Hon''ble Apex Court also observed in the decision in the case between Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , more particularly in paragraphs 24 to 27 thus:

In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.

We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly u/s 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate u/s 156(3).

If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. Or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (through he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

3.2 Subsequently, in the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 68 of 2008, the Hon''ble Apex Court has passed certain directions. In light of the directions, the learned Magistrate is required to pass appropriate directions and/or take necessary steps in consonance with the said directions. The said directions read thus:

In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of F.I.Rs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the concerned Magistrates by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the F.I.Rs to the complainants, within twenty four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In case F.I.Rs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the concerned Magistrate would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same. Keeping in mind these facts, we are of the view that notices should be issued to Government of all the States and Union Territories besides Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be.

Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not press present petition and seeks to withdraw the petition with a view to approaching the Court of learned Magistrate with an appropriate application and the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the petition. Therefore, having regard to the above observations by the Hon''ble Apex Court and aforesaid submission and request made by learned advocate for the petitioner, present petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn/not pressed since the petitioner wants to take out appropriate application before the concerned learned Magistrate. If and when application in connection with the subject matter of present petition is taken out by the petitioner, learned Magistrate may take necessary and appropriate action in accordance with law and in view of the provision of the Code and in light of the above mentioned decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court. Direct service is permitted.