Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Poona Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2019
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.14748/2019
(Mrs. Poona Bai Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :20.08.2019
Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State on advance copy.
Heard on admission This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(1) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondents No.1 1 to 5 to conduct proper enquiry representation of petitioner against the respondents No.6 to 11 and started criminal proceeding under appropriates Sections of IPC and police regulation act.
(2) Hon'ble Counrt may kindly be pleased to direct the enquiry against the respondents No.6 to 11 under judicial supervision because all suspected persons are police officers/employees.
(3) That, any other relief which deems fit and proper be also awarded looking to the facts of the case including the cost of the petition.
As an interim relief, it is also prayed that respondents No.6 to 11 be directed to return back the ornaments which are allegedly taken from the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that in the night of 30.01.2019, the respondents No.6 to 10 forcibly entered her house along with the brother of the petitioner who has been 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14748/2019 (Mrs. Poona Bai Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) made an accused in a theft case at Police Station-Bankhedi and took over the ornaments of the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner has already intervened in the matter. The matter is already subjudice in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Piparia wherein she has filed an application that the said ornaments be not given on supurdagi as the ownership of the same is disputed.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has stated that as the petitioner has already intervened in the matter and filed an application. She may have file an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking further enquiry in the matter.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :-
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P.(supra), 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 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, 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14748/2019 (Mrs. Poona Bai Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) 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 investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) 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 alternate his 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."
In view of the law laid down in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra), this writ petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedy available to her under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge @shish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2019.08.21 16:14:13 +05'30'