Priyanka Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief :-

'' अतः माननीय न्यायलय से विनम्र प्रार्थना है कि, आवेदिका की ओर से प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार किया जाकर अनावेदक क्रमांक - 1 व 2 को अनावेदक क्रंमाक -3 लगायत -6 के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट अंतर्गत धारा - 498 ए, 323, 294, 34 भा.द.वि. का अपराध पंजीबध किये जाने का आदेश/निर्देश दिये जाने की कृपा की जावे।''

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the fact that the complaints have been made to the concerning Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior and also the Superintendent of Police, District Gwalior but no action has been taken by the respondents/authority. Counsel for the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 to register criminal case against the private respondents under Section 498-A, 323, 294 and 34 of IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application stating that no such relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Basu Vs. State of U.P and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 and in case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 and he further contended that the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching under Section 153 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the concerning authority for redressing his grievance and no relief can be granted in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.  He has prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From perusal of the record, it is seen that the complainants were made by the petitioner to the concerning authority but no action has been taken by the respondents/authority and no such relief has been granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Basu (Supra) considering the judgment passed in the case of  Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), has held that :

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 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 the High Court under Article 226 of the 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 the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case 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."

Thus, considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme  Court,  no  relief  can  be  granted  to  the  petitioner.  The petitioner may avail alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. as pointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Basu (Supra) and Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (Supra).

With the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the concerning authority for redressing his grievance.