Ramesh Prasad Pandey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a relief of direction to the respondents police authorities to take prompt action against respondents No. 4 to 6 in relation to Crime No. 46/2013 registered by Police Station Baikunthpur, District Rewa, including investigation, filing of challan and arrest of respondents No. 4 to 6. A further relief is claimed by the petitioner to look into the investigation conducted by the Police in the same crime number registered by the aforesaid Police Station. In alternative, the petitioner has claimed a direction against the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the representation made by the petitioner within a time bound framed. It is contended that upon making a complaint with respect to the forged newspaper advertisement, after conducting some sort of enquiry, an FIR was lodged by the authority. However, despite lodging of the FIR, the investigation is not being done by the respondents police authorities in appropriate manner and thereby the private respondents No. 4 to 6 are given protection by the police. A detailed representation in this respect has been made, even the higher authorities of the State are apprised of such improper action, but nothing has been done by the authorities, therefore, the writ petition is required to be filed seeking the aforesaid direction. Even if the total allegations made by the petitioner and documents placed on record are taken into consideration, it has to be seen that once the FIR is lodged investigation is to be done by the respondents and this Court would not monitor the investigation assuming the power of superior authority of Investigation Officer. The Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Others, in paragraph 50 of the report has categorically held that the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team. The High Court cannot be converted into Station Houses. Further in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court has categorically held that if on a complaint made in the police, investigation is not done, a complainant has a right to approach a Magistrate under the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with respect to any cognizable case. The Magistrate is required to record the statements and then if the Magistrate finds that a prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate can direct investigation in the offences or to take action in the matter himself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has put his reliance in the case of Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and has contended that the power can still be exercised by the High Court to transfer the investigation and look into the allegations made in the complaint. It is held in the said case that once an FIR is recorded, an obligation is created on the authorities to investigate the said case without the order of a Magistrate. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this power, therefore, is required to be exercised by the respondents and the investigation is to be conducted and a final report is required to be filed before the Magistrate. Since a report is already lodged, FIR is registered, therefore, it would be proper for this Court to command the authorities to investigate the matter. With all respects to the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is to be seen that the Apex Court has nowhere said in the case of Samaj Parivartan Samudai (supra) that procedure u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be resorted to in case an FIR is lodged. Even if the FIR is lodged and registered by the police, still the petitioner can approach the Court of Magistrate by making appropriate application u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As has been pointed out herein above, the Apex Court has already deprecated the practice of usurping the power by High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to regulate the investigation of a Crime. Once it is held that such powers are not to be exercised or, is required to be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare case, each and every case is not required to be examined by this Court for direction of investigation. The petitioner has simply made the allegation in his representation. There are certain facts which have been reported in the FIR duly registered and this will be enough material if the same is produced before the Magistrate along with a complaint, in case it is found by the petitioner that proper investigation of the crime is not being done by the police authorities, by filing a complaint u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court again would not be required to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the aforesaid circumstances. Lastly, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a Misc. Criminal Case No. 2515/2013, filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has directed the investigating authority to complete the investigation within a time bound period vide order dated 1.3.2013. It is contended that this power is, therefore, can be exercised by this Court. Once it is held by the Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre (supra) that whatever power is available to the High Court is not required to be exercised in such circumstances, it is not open to this Court to overlook such a law laid down by the Apex Court, therefore, it is not a case where extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no substance in the writ petition which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed without notice to the other side. However, the petitioner would be free to approach the appropriate Court by making a complaint in the appropriate manner as prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure in case the petitioner feels that proper investigation of the crime is not done by the respondents police authorities. This order will not come in his way in making such a complaint. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.