The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report has to be registered, he can be the informant and get a First Information Report registered in the Police Station or even can file a complaint before a competent Court. There are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which take care of the situation. Approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially is not the appropriate remedy, which the petitioner should avail.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner, who was a member of the legislative assembly alleged that a huge fraud had been committed and public money had been siphoned under the Ranchi Sewerage Drainage Project of 2005 and Meinhardt Singapore Private Limited was appointed as consultant for the said project and public money has been siphoned and misappropriated by several persons, which requires registering of a First Information Report and investigation. It was furthermore alleged that till now no FIR has been lodged, which forced the Petitioner to approach the present court under Article 226 of the constitution of India to get the FIR registered.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that there exists an order of the division bench, directing the State to take a decision on the matter of granting sanction as early as possible. Therefore, filing of a writ Petition before the Single Judge for the same relief is unwarranted.
The court furthermore observed that if a petitioner believes that a First Information Report needs to be filed after a cognizable offense, he may serve as the informant and file a complaint with the appropriate court or the police station. The situation is handled by the several provisions found in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner should not immediately pursue Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a remedy.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists nothing to suggest that the petitioner had filed any complaint or had tried to get a First Information Report registered in any Police Station, rather he has approached this Court, directly, by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No.376 of 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Murari Prasad Sinha, Advocate Ms. Leena Shakti, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA IV Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
