Murat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7803 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        W.P. No.12720/2021
         (Murat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Others )
                                     (1)

Gwalior, dated : 25/11/2021
      Shri V.K. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners.
      Shri G.K. Agrawal, Government Advocate                     for   the
respondents/State.

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :-

i) That, the explanation may be called from the respondent No. 2 & 3 that what action has been legally taken over the application of the petitioner i.e Annexure P/1.

ii) That, the respondents No. 2 & 3 may kindly be directed to produce / file the inquiry details / report before the honourable court in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioner i.e Annexure P/1 and what action has been taken taken against the respondent No. 4 i.e. Metro Warehouse.

iii) That, the respondents No. 2 & 3 may kindly be directed to make detailed enquiry over the application of the petitioner i.e Annexure P/1 and all possible aspect of cheating and criminal breach of trust may be examined as per law.

iv) That, the respondent No. 2 & 3 may kindly be directed to make register the complaint of petitioner i.e Annexure P/1 under section 154 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year

2014-2016, the petitioners have deposited their grains in the Metro

Ware House i.e respondent No. 4 and as per rules obtained receipts

in this respect, about 892 bags of Soyabeans of petitioners were

stored in the said ware house amounting to Rs. 27, 58, 160/-, but the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.12720/2021 (Murat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Others )

Management of the said ware house has refused to return back the

grains of the petitioners and the petitioners are still possessing the

original receipts of the grain deposit and when the matter is brought

in the knowledge of the police authorities, the police authorities

under the influence of the ware house owner are not making any

inquiry into the matter. Hence, the petitioners have filed the instant

petition seeking direction to the respondents/authorities to register an

FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C.

Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State contends that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that it is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the present petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.

Perused the record.

In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others

((2008)2 SCC 409) has held as under:-

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.12720/2021 (Murat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Others )

no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

14. Section 156 (3) states:

"Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned."

The words `as abovementioned obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.

15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19).

17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.

24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.12720/2021 (Murat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Others )

156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.

(Emphasis supplied)

Recently the Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs.

S. Janaki (Cr.A. No.102 of 2011) decided on 20/3/2020, has held

as under:-

6. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hent Dhage mant Yashwaand Others ((2016)6 SCC 277), in which it is observed.

"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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.12720/2021 (Murat Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P. & Others )

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."

(Emphasis supplied)

In congruence with the aforesaid well settled position, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a similar view in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & others (2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338)).

In view of the legal conspectus on the point in issue, as cited above, since the petitioner has rushed to this Court without availing the alternative efficacious remedy as envisaged under the Cr.P.C., this writ petition cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, if the petitioner approaches the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate concerned shall proceed in accordance with law including the precedents enumerated hereinabove.

The certified copy of the order passed today shall be issued to the petitioners only after curing the default as pointed out by the registry.

                                                                   (S.A.Dharmadhikari)
                                                                         Judge
Durgekar*
            Digitally signed by SANJAY NAMDEORAO

SANJAY      DURGEKAR
            DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
            PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH


NAMDEOR
            COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH

GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ffc277

AO 608ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8448e58, pseudonym=DA26B82C5BC4CAF69072CA5 A13CA996C4169AB06, serialNumber=1190D1488DBA862FB108ED

DURGEKAR 66262DC2DC2CB9D310D73128B3A6E7B04 6FCF28227, cn=SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Date: 2021.11.25 17:09:54 +05'30'