Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Lal Chouksey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 125 of 2022
1. Karan Lal Chouksey, S/o Shri Parasram Chouksey, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village Sikri Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station Dipka,
District Korba Chhattisgarh.
2. Janki Bai, W/o Shri Karan Lal Chouksey, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Sirki Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station Dipka, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Departrment of
Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Office of
The Inspector General Of Police District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent of Police Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Dipka, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Ajay Shrivas, S/o Shri Raju Shrivas Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Sirki Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station- Dipka, Disrict
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
7. Aditya Pradhan (Lochan), S/o Shri Vijay Pradhan, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Sirki Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station Dipka,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
8. Shailendra Chauhan, S/o Shri Dhaniram Chauhan, Aged About
18 Years, R/o Village Sirki Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station Dipka,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
9. Sanoj Nayak, S/o Shri Sagar Prasad Nayak, Aged About 22
2
Years, R/o Village Sirki Khurd, Chainpur, Police Station Dipka,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Shahil Singh, Adv.
For State : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
02/02/2022
Proceedings through video conferencing.
1. The petitioners have preferred this petition seeking direction to
respondent/police authorities to conduct preliminary
enquiry/investigation against the private respondents and to register
FIR against them before the competent Criminal Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2021, son of the
petitioners visited the Dussehra maidan with his friends (proposed
accused/ private respondents) and at about 11.00 p.m., when
petitioners tried to contact their son but there was no response. Next
day, at about 9.00 a.m., petitioners got the dead body of their son and it
was informed that due to some incident happened in last night, son of
the petitioners died and the conduct of the private respondents creates
suspicion regarding their participation in the said incident. Hence, this
petition.
3. On the basis of the above factual matrix, the petitioners have
filed this petition and prayed for following reliefs:-
a. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions by
directing the respondent authorities to conduct preliminary
enquiry/ investigation against the private respondents and
register FIR against them and comply the guidelines issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita
Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others and to
file final report before the competent Criminal Court having
jurisdiction, in the interest of justice.
b. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass
appropriate orders in favour of the petitioners, so fas as the
cost of litigation and other miscellaneous expenses are
concerned.
c. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief as it deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others 1, has examined the issue in paragraphs 27
and 28 and held as under:-
"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a
proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly
(though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should
discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that
his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being
registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police.
For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3)
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a
writ petition or a petition under Section Cr.P.C.
"28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to
a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."
5. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu
(Supra) has again come up for consideration before three judges
Bench (2008) 2 SCC 409 in case of M. Subramaniam & another Vs.
S. Janaki & another 2. The Supreme Court after considering the same
judgment has held at para 7 & 9 which are as under:-
"7. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe
v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, in which it is observed: (SCC p. 278,
paras 2-4) "2. 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) CrPC. If such an application under Section
156 (3) CrPC 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."
"9. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain 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) CrPC 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."
6. From the analysis of above legal provisions, it is crystal clear that
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable before the High Court. However, it is open to the
petitioners to approach the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class
having territorial jurisdiction over the place of offence if it deems
appropriate and necessary for filing of complaint under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C or Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and in-turn the Magistrate will follow
the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the
case as to whether the averments made in the petition discloses any
criminal offence or not and it is for the concerned Magistrate to decide
the case on merits of the case without being influenced by any of the
observations made by this Court.
7. Considering the facts and materials on record and in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that
the present writ petition is not maintainable.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition (criminal) is
disposed of with the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioners.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Ruchi
