Munnalal Jagneriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8438 MP

                                     1                                 WP-23039-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 WP No. 23039 of 2021
         (MUNNALAL JAGNERIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 08-12-2021
      Shri Padam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition is being filed seeking following relief:-

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3-In charge Officer, Police Station Mungaoli,

District Ashoknagar to lodge the FIR /register the case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C,. of petitioner against above said 4 accused persons for above said offences.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, District Ashoknagar (M.P.) to supervise the investigation personally because of all the accused are so powerful and having very big hands who can temper with and interrupt and hindered the investigation and further be direct to carry out the fair and impartial investigation.

(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in facts and

circumstances of the case may also be granted."

It is alleged that petitioner is running a transport agency to provide taxi in the Departments. A contract has been prepared between the petitioner and Vikas Health Environment Foundation-Citi Center, Gwalior wherein, two vehicles were provided by petitioner to the aforesaid Foundation @ Rs.52500/- per month which were used by Dr. Pawan Singhal Veterinary Hospital Ashoknagar and Dr. Anand Tripathi Veterinary Hospital Mungawali, District Ashoknagar for the period of two years. It is submitted that after completion of the said period some amount has not been disbursed by the Foundation, therefore, petitioner has filed written complaint to the respondents authorities, but of no consequence till date. Therefore, present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs in the matter.

2 WP-23039-2021 It is submitted that after a complaint is made regarding commission of cognizable offence to the police authorities. The police authorities are duty bound to register an FIR in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. He has further placed reliance upon the

judgment passed in the case of Sangita Ingle Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 1423 and in the case of Shaikh Ansaar Ahmad Mohd. Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 867.

It is pointed out that the only ground that some disputed question of facts were involved, the court should not dismiss the applications or writ petitions for registration of an FIR.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has contended that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy for filing a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. if the authorities are not taking any action on the complaint made by the petitioner. There are specific provisions under Cr.P.C. for approaching the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.. If the police authorities are not taking any action the Magistrate is having powers to direct for registration of an FIR or to monitor investigation. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the aforesaid analogy was considered concurrently and was held by the Supreme Court that the remedy of approaching the concerning court for filing of private complaint is available to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the complaint has been filed by the petitioner seeking action against the Foundation who has not been disbursed some amount of contract which was entered into between the 3 WP-23039-2021 petitioner and Foundation. As far as direction for registration of an FIR is concerned, the complaint made by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the police authorities.

I n such circumstances, there are specific provisions provided under Cr.P.C.for registration of an FIR for filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for initiation of proceedings or for monitoring the investigation. The petitioner can very well approach the concerning Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

He has relied upon the earlier judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra) and Sakri Vasu (supra) wherein the Apex Court 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 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 4 WP-23039-2021 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.

As far as the cases, which are relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner were factually on different footings and are no help to the petitioner. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

Hence, petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

(LJ*)

LOKENDRA JAIN 2021.12.13 11:08:47 +05'30'