Sunil Balagopal vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance And Anticorruption Bureau

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

The prayers made in this writ petition read as follows:

"i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or Direction commanding the 1st and 2nd Respondents to conduct time bound enquiry into Exhibits P1 and P2 respectively within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

ii. Direct the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings for action on the irregularities that may arise in the report of the enquiry proceedings by means of an appropriate Writ Direction or Order;

iii. To pass such other orders fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and that may be prayed hereafter."

The averments in the writ petition, on the basis of which the above reliefs are sought, are as follows: The third respondent is the Principal of the Institute of Integrated Medical Sciences (Government Medical College), Palakkad. It is an institution run under the Scheduled Castes Development Department. The petitioner made Ext.P1 complaint to the second respondent with

regard to the irregularities in the appointment of various staff and faculty members in the aforesaid institution and with regard to the fixation of their pay. The fixation of pay of those persons was done in violation of the circular issued by the Government and it has caused huge loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner also made Ext.P2 complaint to the first respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Palakkad Unit) with regard to the above irregularities. The first and the second respondents have not taken any action on the above complaints made by the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor/ Special Government Pleader (Vigilance).

The prayer in Ext.P1 complaint made by the petitioner to the second respondent is to conduct an enquiry with regard to the irregularities in the appointment of staff in the Government Medical College, Palakkad and the fixation of their pay and to recover the excess amount paid to the persons concerned.

The averments in the writ petition do not disclose what is the interest of the petitioner in the appointment of staff and fixation of their pay in a Government Medical College. The petitioner is a total stranger. He is not a person in any manner connected with the appointment of staff in the Government Medical College, Palakkad or the fixation of their pay and allowances. The writ petition also lacks proper averments as to the basis of the allegations raised by him. It is also pertinent to note that the writ petition is filed not as a public interest litigation. In these circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner to issue a direction to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry on Ext.P1 complaint cannot be entertained.

The prayer made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 complaint given to the first respondent is to conduct an enquiry and investigation with regard to the matters stated in that complaint. It is also mentioned in Ext.P2 complaint that the excess amount paid to the persons concerned should be recovered from them. It is alleged in Ext.P2 complaint that public money is being misappropriated, causing huge financial loss to the Government.

The petitioner made Ext.P2 complaint to the police (the VACB) alleging misappropriation of public money. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not taken any action on Ext.P2 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 any 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 file a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence/offences alleged. 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).

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.

However, 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 above question has been discussed and answered by this Court in Jude Joseph v. Director General of Police (2021 (3) KHC 441).

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition also with regard to Ext.P2 complaint made by him to the first respondent.

The discussion above would show that the writ petition has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.