Ku. Roshni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 466 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 466 MP
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ku. Roshni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                   1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C.No.44801/2020
               (Ku. Roshni Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Gwalior, Dated:-4/3/2021
      Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Narottam Sharma, learned           Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State.

(1) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred

under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for

quashing First Information Report registered at Crime No.344/2020

by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior for the offence

punishable under Sections 354Ka, 354Gha of IPC.

(2) Learned counsel for the State submits that the subsequent

development in the matter is that the charge-sheet has been filed

before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class on 6.2.2021 and

no further direction can be issued by this Court.

(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been harassed and being terrorized by the accused persons and

she is not even able to move out of the house. In such circumstances

the another FIR has been lodged by the petitioner against the accused

persons, but no offence is being registered by the police authorities on

the complaint made by the petitioner.

(4) Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

and as per the settled legal preposition in the case of Sakiri Basu

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.44801/2020 (Ku. Roshni Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Vs. State of U.P and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 907

and in case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant

Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277, if

the petitioner is having any grievance with respect to mode and

manner in which the investigation is being conducted by the Police

Authorities he is having a remedy of approaching the concerning

Magistrate by way of filing proceedings under section 156 (3) or

section 200 of Cr.P.C. as the concerning Magistrate is having powers

to even monitor the investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sakiri Basu (Supra) considering the judgment passed in the

case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), has held that :

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 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 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.44801/2020 (Ku. Roshni Vs. State of M.P. and others)

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) 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."

(5) In view of aforesaid analysis of the case no relief can be

extended to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is at liberty to

approach the concerning Magistrate by way of filing appropriate

proceedings under section 200 of Cr.P.C.