Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42338) on 5 December, 2023
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JD:42338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7089/2023
Sumer Singh Rajpurohit S/o Sh. Shri Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Post Phulesar Tehsil Phalsund
Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur,raj.
3. I.G., I.G. Range Jodhpur Rural
4. Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer,raj.
5. The Station House Officer, P.s. Phalsund, Jaisalmer,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shravan Bishnoi - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
05/12/2023
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought indulgence of this
Court for directing the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer to
register the FIR of the petitioner in light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
& Ors., decided on 12.11.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
judgment passed in the matter of Parbat Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 7552/2022,
decided on 15.11.2022.
[2023:RJ-JD:42338] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7089/2023]
3. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe
Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277 while following
its earlier decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. : (2008) 2 SCC
409 held as follows:
"This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a
person has a grievance that his F.I.R. 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
concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. If such
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made and the
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the F.I.R.
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's 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.
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)
Cr.P.C. 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. The power of the Magistrate to monitor investigation in
exercise of his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has also been
recognized in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal : (2011) 12 SCC 328 where, in
the light of the law laid down in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), it has
been observed as under:-
"It should also be noted that Section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate
on the police performing their duties and where the
Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or
not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to
carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the
same."
[2023:RJ-JD:42338] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7089/2023]
5. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M.Subramaniam
and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and Anr. : 2020 SCC online S.C. 341
affirmed the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and held as under:-
"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 FIR 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) CrPC, 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."
6. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. : Criminal Appeal No. 781/2012 the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the powers for registering a cognizable case under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be used casually. It is also held that
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the jurisdictional Magistrate is
competent to direct the police for registering a case if he satisfies
that some cognizable offence has been committed.
7. Section 156(3) contemplates that any Magistrate empowered
under Section 190 may order such an investigation regarding any
cognizable case.
8. In the instant matter, the petitioner has not invoked the
jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate for sending the complaint
for registration of the FIR and has directly invoked the jurisdiction
of this Court by filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though
it is correct that under Section 154(1) & 154(3) Cr.P.C. it is
imperative for the police officer to register the FIR if it appears
that some cognizable offence has been committed, as per the law
laid down.
[2023:RJ-JD:42338] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7089/2023]
9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Prabat
Singh (supra) while invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi for doing the needful.
10. In light of the express provisions enshrined in Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), I am of the considered
opinion that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be
invoked.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, the criminal misc.
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
261-AK Chouhan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
