Hamid Ali vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1001 Chatt

                                                                                                     1

                                                                                             NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          CRMP No. 339 of 2023
     • Hamid Ali S/o Late Safdar Ali Aged About 52 Years R/o Atal Awas,
       Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                              Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Atal
        Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

     3. Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District
        Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

     4. Vimal Kashyap S/o Late Sundar Lal Aged About 46 Years R/o Telipara
        Medical Complex, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                               ---- Respondents
                                    CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         For Petitioner                      :        Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Adv.
         For Respondent/State                :        Ms. M. Asha, PL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 16.02.2023

1. This petition has been filed to direct the concerned police officials/

respondents No.1 to 3 to register an FIR against respondent No.4.

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that respondent No.4 executed a

notarized agreement with petitioner for construction of a building with terms

and conditions mentioned in the agreement. However, even after execution of

work, respondent No.4 withheld Rs.9 Lacs in an illegal manner therefore, the

petitioner approached the concerned Station House Officer/respondent No.3,

but no action was taken. Hence, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non registration of

FIR and non issuance of notice under Section 155 Cr.P.C. is violation of

principles and directions laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs.

Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 which provides

that FIR must be registered forthwith in case it relates to the commission of

cognizable offence and there is no discretion available to the police

authorities. Therefore, concerned respondents may be directed to register the

FIR against respondent No.4 and to initiate proper enquiry against him.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is

mechanism available in the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and in catena of

judgments, it is reiterated that there if there is alternative remedy for proper

investigation, then the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. Learned

State counsel places reliance on the judgment the matter of Sakiri Vasu Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and submits that at

this juncture this petition is sans merit and the same deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents

annexed with the petition.

6. In the matter of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in

(2008) 2 SCC 409, an observation was made with regard to mechanism of

registration of FIR and non registration of FIR/improper investigation. This

Court deems it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 25 to 28 of the said

judgment which reads thus:-

"25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/ or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).

26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can

approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

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 Sections 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 482 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."

7. In light of principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this

Court is of the view that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of

approaching first before police officials under Section 36 and 154 (3) Cr.P.C.

and if not then remedy is available under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to approach

learned Magistrate or in alternative, Section 200 Cr.P.C., but in the instant

case, the petitioner has directly approached the High Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C. therefore, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to allow the

prayer of the petitioner. However, the petitioner may avail the remedies

available to him under the law.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay