Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramashankar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.4727.2021.
(Ramshankar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors).
GWALIOR; dated 04.03.2021.
Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel, for the petitioner.
Shri Varun Kaushik, GA for the respondents/State.
Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a writ or direction to the respondent
authorities for conducting fair and impartial investigation in to the
matter with respect to registration of FIR, bearing Crime No.223 of
2020 on 23.10.2020 at PS Gohad Chauraha district Bhind.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid FIR
has been registered against the vehicle registered in the name of
petitioner for causing accident,at Crime No.223 of 2020 on 23.10.2020
by PS Gohad Chauraha district Bhind for offence under Sections 279,
337 and 304A of IPC, whereas, the vehicle in question was in the
custody of Mehgaon Police on the said date. But the police authorities
are not conducting the investigation in the light of aforesaid fact.
Petitioner approached them time and again, but since nothing is being
done, this petition has been filed before this court for a direction as
stated herein above.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.4727.2021.
(Ramshankar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors).
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, 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 same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court
recently in the case of M.Subramaniyam and Others Vs. S.Janki
and Others in Cr.Appeal No.102 of 2011.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.4727.2021.
(Ramshankar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors).
Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid cases this court is not inclined to entertain the petition as
the remedy is available to the petitioner before concerning Magistrate
u/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of 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 raising all the grievance
pertaining to the fact that the respondents/authorities are not taking any
action on the representation being submitted by the petitioner and if
such an application is filed within 15 days from today, the concerning
Magistrate is directed to look into the matter and decide it expeditiously
in accordance with law.
CC as per rules.
(Vishal Mishra)
RAM KUMAR
Judge
SHARMA
2021.03.04
Rks. 16:51:16 +05'30'
