Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepshikha Sonkar vs The Madhya Pradesh State Mining ... on 8 November, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-22493-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 22493 of 2021
(DEEPSHIKHA SONKAR Vs THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE MINING CORPORATION AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-11-2021
Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
The present petition is being filed seeking following relief:-
"(i) Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to call the entire record of Annexure P-4 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the concerned police station to take appropriate steps against the respondent no.6 in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other reliefs, which deems fit and proper be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
It is alleged that the petitioner being a woman and is a owner of the property for which the respondent no.6 has got his name mutated by playing fraud and collusion with the revenue authorities like Inspector, Patwari and Tehsildar. He has preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for taking appropriate action against the concerning authorities. It is alleged that the civil suit was preferred by the petitioner's grandfather against the respondent no.6 with respect to the property bearing Khasra No.264, 264/1, 264/25 and new number 522 which is situated at Belbagh which was purchased on 17.07.1975 and at relevant time respondent no.6 was only 8 years of age. The civil suit was decided on 07.02.2014 by the trial court and an injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner's grandfather. The registered will dated 30.08.2016 was executed by the grandfather and the property was executed in the name of the petitioner but respondent no.6 in collusion with respondent authorities, Revenue authorities have got the name mutated in the legal manner therefore, Signature Not Verified SAN complaint was made for registration of an FIR in pursuance to the mandatory Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.11.12 10:40:54 IST 2 WP-22493-2021 provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
It is submitted that after a complaint is made regarding commission of cognizable offence to the police authorities. The police authorities are duty bound to register an FIR in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Sangita Ingle Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 1423 and in the case of Shaikh Ansaar Ahmad Mohd. Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 867.
It is pointed out that the only ground that some disputed question of facts were involved, the court should not dismiss the applications or writ petitions for registration of an FIR.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has contended that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy for filing a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. if the authorities are not taking any action on the complaint made by the petitioner. There are specific provisions under Cr.P.C. for approaching the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.. If the police authorities are not taking any action the Magistrate is having powers to direct for registration of an FIR or to monitor investigation. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the aforesaid analogy was considered concurrently and was held by the Supreme Court that the remedy of approaching the concerning court for filing of private complaint is available to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the complaint has been filed by the petitioner seeking action against the Revenue authorities as well as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.11.12 10:40:54 IST 3 WP-22493-2021 the respondent no.6 who has brought the name mutated in the revenue records by filing proceedings under M.P.L.R.C. It is seen from the records that the mutation proceedings have taken place and judicial order was passed by the authorities. The petitioner was having a right to challenge the judicial order in an appropriate proceedings. As far as direction for registration of an FIR is concerned, the complaint made by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the police authorities.
In such circumstances, there are specific provisions provided under Cr.P.C.for registration of an FIR for filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for initiation of proceedings or for monitoring the investigation. The petitioner can very well approach the concerning Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
He has relied upon the earlier judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra) and Sakri Vasu (supra) wherein the Apex Court 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) 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.11.12 10:40:54 IST 4 WP-22493-2021 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) Cr.P.C. 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."
The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of M. Subramaniyam and Others Vs. S. Janki and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 728.
As far as the cases, which are relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner were factually on different footings and are no help to the petitioner. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Hence, petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Sha Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.11.12 10:40:54 IST