Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Raghuvanshi vs State Of Mp on 22 October, 2020
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.16142.2020.
(Ravi Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. )
GWALIOR; dated 22.08.2020.
Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioner.
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to
outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the
advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been
heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social
distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel
through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/
physical distancing in letter and spirit.
Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a writ or direction to the respondent
authorities to investigate the incident that occurs between 6.9.2020 to 7.9.2020 by constituting an SIT under the supervision of respondent No.2.
It is alleged that despite the facts being brought to the notice of respondent authorities vide representation annexure P/3 no action has been taken nor any investigation has been conducted in a free and fair manner by considering the relevant aspect into consideration whereas, this being a case of poisoning, the forensic expertise are also required because, in such cases, every aspect right from the consumption of food to the decomposition of body to the time of death is of greater relevance and even the aspect of queries being made to the forensic experts as to whether, the poison could have been consumed with food affects the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.16142.2020.
(Ravi Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. ) investigation in toto.
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 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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.16142.2020.
(Ravi Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. ) 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.
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 partial and unfair investigation being carried out by the police authorities 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) Judge Rks.
RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2020.10.22 17:36:34 +05'30'