Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Mashrani vs Shri J. Kujur on 27 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 398 of 2018
• Vijay Masrani S/o S/o Bhupat Roy Masrani Aged About 54 Years
Occupation Sahayak Teacher Shaskiya Anudan Prapt Shri Gujrati
Shikshan Sangh K. K. Road Maudhapara, Raipur, Through Sanchalit
Shri Gujrati Prathmik School Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Residence E- 13,
Sector-2 Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Shri Prakash Patel (Lok Sewak) Pradhan Pathak Shri Gujrati Prathmik
School, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPCR No. 399 of 2018
• Vijay Mashrani S/o Bhupat Ray Mashrani, Aged About 54 Years
Occupation Sahayak Teacher Shaskiya Anudan Prapt Shri Gujrati
Shikshan Sangh K. K. Road Maudhapara, Raipur, Through Sanchalit
Shri Gujrati Prathmik School Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Residence E- 13,
Sector-2 Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Shri J. Kujur (Lok Sewak), Vikashkhand Shikcha Adhikari, Abhanpur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., ---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioner : Petitioner in person along with Advocate Mr.
Qamrul Aziz, Advocate.
For respondent : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
27-08-2021
1. As both the aforesaid petitions involve a common question of law,
they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. The petitioner, who is a Teacher of Aided School, Gujrati Primary
School, Devendranagar, Raipur, has filed the present writ
petitions (cr) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against
the respondents who are Principal and Block Education Officer,
alleging that they have committed certain irregularities while
working which do not fall within the ambit of official duty,
therefore, they have committed offence under Section 22(b) of
the CG Vinidrisht Brashta Acharan Adhindiyamn, 1982, therefore,
he has filed the instant petitions for registration of complaint
under Section 420 of IPC against the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would raise objection that
the present writ petitions (cr) are not maintainable as the
petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy available to him
by filing complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First
Class under Section 156(3) or 200 of Cr.P.C. He would further
submit the since the respondents are Principal and Block
Education Officer of the aided institution, therefore, respondents
being public servants, permission is required very much under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C., from the appropriate authority to make a
complaint against them and without obtaining the permission
from the appropriate authority, complaint would not be
maintainable.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. From perusal of reliefs sought, it is quite clear that the petitioner wants
that the FIR should be registered against the respondents for which
the petitioner has remedy of filing a complaint before the concerned
Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) or 200 of the
Cr.P.C.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others1, has examined the issue holding that the petitioner
has remedy of filing of complaint before the concerned Judicial
Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme
Court has again considered and decided the issue in Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and M.
Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another2.
7. Considering the facts and materials on record and in the light of the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above cited
judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a
complaint under Section 156(3) or 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of
offence and in-turn Magistrate shall follow the procedure prescribed
under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
8. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to permission of
the appropriate authority before making a complaint is to be examined
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class while considering the complaint.
9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed with liberty
granted in favour of the petitioner to file complaint under Section
156(3) or 200 of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409
2 (2020) 16 SCC 728
