Sanjeev Kumar Paliwal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a complaint (Annexure-P-1) in which proper action has not been

taken and that the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have fabricated certain documents, therefore, they are required to be prosecuted.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the remedy lies in taking action as per the procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that Cr.P.C. provides for a complete procedure in such

cases if on the petitioner's complaint the FIR is not registered then he has a remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police and if the S.P. also

does not take any action then the proper remedy is to file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, 2016 (6) SCC 277, has held as under:-

This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 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 to the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 Courtsentertain 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) Cr.P.C. 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.

In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The

Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he

can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also

monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish

before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.

This Court has also in the matter of Rahul Chopra Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 16.08.2016 passed in W.P. No.3951/2016 after

taking note of the aforesaid judgment of the

Supreme Court and other judgments on the point has held as under:-

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs.

Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has held that the remedy in such matter does not lie before the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution but before the Magistrate concerned u/S. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It has been held that if the petitioner has a grievance

that the police station is not registering the FIR u/S. 154 of the Cr.P.C., then he can approach Superintendent of Police u/S. 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. by

an application in writing and even if that does not yield any satisfactory result, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application u/S. 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct proper investigation to be made in

case if it is alleged that no proper investigation was made.

Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police u/S. 154(3) Cr.P.C. and then approaching the Magistrate

u/S. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, no case for issuing any direction in the present writ petition is made out.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available under law.

Having regard to the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has appropriate remedy under the Cr.P.C., no case to entertain this petitioner is made out.

Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided in Cr.P.C. If the petitioner has any other cause of action, he will have

liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.