* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.1196 OF 2012
Decided on : 29th August , 2012
K.K. SINGH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.M. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Ms. Urvi
Kuthiala, Advocate for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.15617/2012 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents for converting the Special Report dated 18.6.2003 against the then S.D.M., A.K. Saxena, into an FIR under relevant Sections of Prevention of Corruption W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 1 of 7 Act as well as IPC in Police Station Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is claiming himself to be the General Secretary of Bhartiya Association for Rural Development and is resident of E-134, First Floor, Sector-27, Noida-201301. It has been stated that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are senior officers of the Government of Delhi and responsible for proper governance and implementation of vigilance administration in Government of Delhi. It is alleged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and 'Maili Yamuna' cases has directed to stop the polluting industries from operating in the State of Delhi. Accordingly, a direction was given for the purpose of sealing the industries which were not shifting from the Territory of Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner, in pursuance to his RTI query dated 29.11.2010 has been able to obtain a copy of the Special Report given by the Additional CP/AC Branch to Director Vigilance wherein it is stated as under :-
W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 2 of 7
"Subject: Special Report against SDM Narela, Mr. A.K. Saxena.
Sir, A survey of Narela and adjoining areas was conducted an it has been found that a large number of factories which had been closed/sealed on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has started functioning. A sample survey showed that the following factories are running despite orders to the contrary:
a) Rama Krishan Ispat, Prahladpur.
b) Ganga Mill, Sahabad, Daulatpur
c) Rajeshwari, Sahabad, Daulatpur
d) Golden Plywood, Sahabad, Daulatpur
e) Narpal Singh Saria Mill, Sahabad,
Daulatpur
It has been reliably learnt that the factory owners pay a bribe amount of `5000/- to `10,000/- on monthly basis to SDM, Narela, Mr. A.K. Saxena. Owners of these unauthorized factories have come together, formed an informal association and selected a common man who used to collect money and give it to SDM, Narela.
Sd/-
(RAJESH MALIK) IPS ADDL. C.P./AC BRANCH DATED 18.6.2003 W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 3 of 7 Director (Vigilance) "
3. On the basis of this, it is stated that the matter was referred to Vigilance Commissioner, namely, one B.V. Selvaraj, an IAS Officer. It is stated that so far as Selvaraj himself is concerned, he had landed himself into a CBI dragnet on account of graft cases. It is alleged that since Selvaraj was himself involved in a graft case, therefore, the petitioner expected that he would not act on the basis of the report submitted by Rajesh Malik, IPS, the then Additional CP. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is stated that a direction be given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to register an FIR against A.K. Saxena, the then SDM, Narela, under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as IPC on the basis of the said report.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel and have also gone through the record. In my considered opinion, the present petition is not at all maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has clearly laid down that the High Court W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 4 of 7 should be very loath to give a direction for registration of an FIR. The reason for this is that the registration of an FIR in respect of a cognizable offence is essentially, in the first instance, to be done by the SHO under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It has been observed that in case the SHO does not register an FIR, the aggrieved person has an appropriate remedy available to him to approach the DCP or the SP of the area whereupon his grievance can be redressed under sub-Clause 2 of Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is further observed that in case, the petitioner, as a party, is still not satisfied then the proper remedy open to him is to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereupon the Magistrate, who is dealing with such a complaint, can either conduct the enquiry himself for the purpose of taking cognizance or can get investigation/enquiry conducted by the police both in terms of Section 156 (3) or under Section 202 IPC, though these two powers will be exercisable in different situations.
5. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the Supreme Court in number of cases has deprecated the practice of the W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 5 of 7 High Court issuing directions for straight away registration of an FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following judgments :-
i) Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; AIR 2008 SC 907;
ii) Aleque Padamsee & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.; (2007) 6 SCC 171; and
(iii) All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union vs. UOI & Ors.; (1996) 11 SCC 582.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, I feel that the present petition is not maintainable and if the petitioner feels aggrieved, the proper remedy for him is to go to the learned Magistrate and make a complaint whereupon he will be required to make out a prima facie case for taking cognizance.
7. In addition to this, another reason for the present petition being not maintainable is that the petitioner does not have any locus. He is claiming himself to be the Secretary of an NGO. The petitioner is neither aggrieved, in any manner, whatsoever nor does he show as to what interest he have in the matter which has prompted him to initiate this writ W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 6 of 7 petition. It seems that the petitioner is a busy body. Report on the basis of which he wants an FIR to be registered has been submitted almost nine years back by the Additional CP to the Director Vigilance. The RTI query which he had made was also more than 1 ½ years ago. Therefore, there is also an inordinate delay in seeking the relief for registration of an FIR. On this ground itself, the bona fides of the petitioner are suspected. I feel that the petitioner is misusing the processes of law only for the reasons which are best known to him. I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In normal circumstances, I would have imposed heaviest possible cost on the petitioner as this seems ex facie a frivolous petition; however, I am refraining from passing any such order.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 29, 2012 'AA' W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012 Page 7 of 7