Rajendra Jindal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3435 MP

                             1

           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     WP-11479-2021
        (RAJENDRA JINDAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)




Gwalior, Dated :19.07.2021

      Shri S.S. Sikarwar, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate General,

for the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the

inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities whereby they are not

arresting the accused against which FIR has been registered by the

petitioner in connection with Crime No.13/2021, u/s 327, 323, 294,

506, 336, 34 of IPC.

It is submitted that the above mentioned FIR has been registered

against the accused persons on the complaint of petitioner because on

06.01.2021 accused persons have committed incident with the present

petitioner and his family members but till today no any investigation

has been conducted by the respondent No.3 and no any person has

been arrested by the Police authorities. Petitioner has submitted

representations before the Police Authorities but no fruitful result has

been gained by the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition has been

filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i)That, respondent authorities may kindly be direct to arrest the accused persons immediately and further directed to file the charge-sheet.

ii) That, respondent authorities may kindly be punish for their illegal act.

iii) That, other relief doing justice including cost be

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-11479-2021 (RAJENDRA JINDAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

ordered."

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General 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. State counsel has submitted that reply has been filed in the

matter stating that investigation is complete.

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

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) 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.

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,

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-11479-2021 (RAJENDRA JINDAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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.

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) CrPC 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the same law in

the case M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another

passed in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011 reported in 2020 Vol.16

SCC 728.

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

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

before concerning Magistrate u/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

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

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerning

Magistrate by way of filing application u/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, if so

advised.

                                                             (Vishal Mishra)
  mani                                                           Judge

SUBASRI MANI
2021.07.19
18:36:57
-07'00'