Md. Wahid Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 240 Jhar

                                         1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                             W.P.(Cr.) No. 189 of 2021
        Md. Wahid Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Md. Majid Ansari, resident
        of village-Dudhani, PO-Madhupur, PS-Madhupur, District-Deoghar
                                                      ..... Petitioner
                                   --    Versus --
        1.The State of Jharkhand
        2.The Director General of Police, Project Building, PO Hatia, PS
        Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
        3.The Deputy Inspector General, Dumka, PO and PS Dumka, District
        Dumka, Jharkhand
        4.The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, PO and PS Deoghar, District
        Deoghar, Jharkhand
        5.The Officer Incharge of Madhupur Police Station, PO and PS Madhupur,
        District Deoghar, Jharkhand
        6.The Officer Incharge of Madhupur Mahila Police Station, PO and PS
        Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand
        7.The Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, PO and PS Madhupur, District
        Deoghar
        8.Rahina Khatoon, daughter of late Hadish Mian, resident of village
        Dudhani, PO Madhupur, PS Madhupur, District Deoghar
        9.Samsuddin Mian, son of Ishaque Mian, resident of Village Dudhani, PO
        Madhupur, PS Madhupur, District Deoghar
        10.Safruddin Ansari, son of late Hadish Mian, resident of Village-Dudhani,
        PO Madhupur, PS Madhupur, District Deoghar
        11.Bachud @ Ajamuddin Ansari, son of late Hadish Mian, resident of
        Village Dudhani, PO Madhupur, PS Madhupur, District-Deoghar
                                                      ...... Respondents
                                          ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

----

4/03.02.2022 This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondent authority to take necessary action against the respondent nos.08 to 11 who were forcefully entered into the house of the petitioner which is situated at Village-Dudhani, Mauza-Dudhani No.259, J.B. No.22, Plot No.502, Area-80 decimals. The further prayer is made for direction upon the respondent authority to take necessary action against the respondent nos.8 to 11 to vacate the house of the petitioner where they were forcefully occupied. Further prayer is made for institution of the F.I.R upon the respondent no.5, Officer in Charge, Madhupur Police Station or respondent no.6 Officer in Charge Madhupur Mahila Police Station who had not instituted the written report of the petitioner on

08.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 as F.I.R against the respondent nos.8 to 11.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The remedies under the Cr.P.C is available to the petitioner. Any aggrieved person for proper investigation can approach the civil court under section 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. A reference may be made to the case of "Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.", (2008) 2 SCC 409 reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409. Paragraph nos.26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"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) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. 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) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. 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 CrPC 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 police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

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."

In view of the above facts and considering that the disputed question of facts is involved in the writ petition and the petitioner is having alternative remedy in which relief can be extended to the petitioner, the instant petition [W.P.(Cr.) No.189 of 2021] is dismissed with liberty to take appropriate remedy as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

SI/