Madhya Pradesh High Court

Guddi Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2022

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

W.P. No.28860/2022
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 14th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 28860 of 2022
BETWEEN:-

GUDDI BAI W/O LATE MANMOHAN SINGH
DHURVE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O VILLAGE
NONGHATI POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHAFIQULLAH- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
ANUPPUR DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. OFFICER INCHARGE OF POLICE
STATION AMARKANTAK DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
W.P. No.28860/2022
2

4. ANIL SHARMA S/O SHEIKH LAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NONGHATI POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

5. BHARAT SINGH GOND S/O NOT
KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE UMNIYA (DAKIYATOLA)
POLICE STATION AMARKANTAK
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

6. HEERA RATAN SINGH GOND S/O
GANPAT GOND, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHEJRI
(NONGHATI) POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

7. ARJUN S/O KESHU @ RAMPRASAD
MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NONGHATI POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

8. MUKESH CHANDRAVANSHI S/O
BESAHAN MEHRA R/O VILLAGE
BEHPUR POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

9. PRAKASH MEHRA S/O PANCHU MEHRA
R/O VILLAGE BEHPUR POLICE
STATION AMARKANTAK DISTRICT
W.P. No.28860/2022
3

ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. ROHIT S/O PRAKASH MEHRA R/O
VILLAGE BEHPUR POLICE STATION
AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. G.K. PATEL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following

reliefs:-

"(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 & 3 to registered an FIR against the respondent no.4 to 6 and investigate the matter on the report lodged by the petitioner Annexure P-2 to P-5 in the interest of justice.

(B) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also granted in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

aggrieved by inaction of respondents No.2 and 3 in not registering the W.P. No.28860/2022

FIR against respondents No.4 to 6. In this regard, the petitioner has

preferred several representations i.e. Annexures P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5

for registering the FIR but no action whatsoever has been taken

thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State contend 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.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. 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, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the W.P. No.28860/2022

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 W.P. No.28860/2022

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 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)

6. 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 W.P. No.28860/2022

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."