Sughar Singh vs State Of Mp
2021 Latest Caselaw 4019 MP

                           1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MCRC.No.31004/2021
                   (Sughar Singh Vs. The State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 06.08.2021

      Shri Sumit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Alok Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

      The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

      The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is being filed

by the petitioner for fair and impartial investigation in connection with

FIR registered art Crime No.0065/2021 for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 201, 147 of IPC at Police Station Tendua, District

Shivpuri (M.P.).

      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

prosecution story, the petitioner/complainant Sughar Singh S/o. Bhura

Yadav lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri,

whereas he stated that on 30.04.2021 in the evening, his father Bhura

Yadav went in a marriage ceremony of Lakhan Dhakar, and when he

was returning from the marriage, then on 02.05.2021 his horse was

found at Lalshah place in Rajghar village and also sustained various

injuries and soon after that he started searching his father and when his

father did not find anywhere, thereafter he lodged a missing report in

police station, and thereafter, he came to know that his father dead

body was found in a well which was near to the marriage place and

also came to know that his father was killed by the Groom, the family

of the bride and groom on the matter of payment of his work. The
                           2
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MCRC.No.31004/2021
                 (Sughar Singh Vs. The State of M.P.)

complainant Sughar Singh also narrated the names of the accused

Umacharan Dhakar, Dinesh Dhakar, Santosh Dhakar, Brajesh Dhakar,

Lakhan Dhakar, Radheshyam Dhakar, Kamal Kishore Dhakar, the

police authority did not arrest them till the present date. The petitioner

filed various applications before the higher authority of the police

department for taking action against the above named accused, but no

action has been taken yet. All the accused persons are making pressure

on him to take back the FIR and do compromise. Learned counsel for

the petitioner prays that the petition may be allowed and the

respondent-authority may be directed to arrest the above named

accused and also take the statement of the eye witness Ajab Singh S/o.

Shri Sahab Singh as well as for fair investigation.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has contended that no such

relief can be granted by this Court in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The petitioner is

having remedy under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to approach the Court

of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao

Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016)

6 SCC 277 has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sakri Vasu v. State of UP reported in (2008) 2

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.31004/2021 (Sughar Singh Vs. The State of M.P.)

SCC 409 and has held as under:-

"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) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C 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.

3. 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

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.31004/2021 (Sughar Singh Vs. The State of M.P.)

that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 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.

4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."

The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court recently in the case of M. Subramaniyam and Others Vs. S.

Janki and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 728.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.31004/2021 (Sughar Singh Vs. The State of M.P.)

Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid cases, the remedy available to the petitioner is

before concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. or

Section 200 of Cr.P.C..

Accordingly, finding no substance in the petition, it is hereby

dismissed.

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerning Magistrate

by way of filing application u/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C or by filing of

private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., if so advised.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made

clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for

practical purposes in respect of this order.

                                                            (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                            Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.08.07
       14:03:18 +05'30'