Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Neetu Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 May, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                        1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 AT GWALIOR
                    BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
             ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.24023 OF 2022

 Between:-

 SMT.   NEETU    GOYAL    W/O
 VISHWANATH GOYAL D/O SHRI
 SAVALRAM     AGRAWAL,   AGE
 ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
 HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O- JAL
 MANDIR       ROAD      PURV
 KAMESHWARI MATA KA MANDIR
 KE   SAMNE    SHIVPURI   M.P.
 PRESENT R/O DHOLI BUA KA PUL
 BAJARIYA LASHKAR, DISTRICT
 GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                        ........APPELLANT

 (BY SHRI A.K.VERMA - ADVOCATE)

 AND

 1.  THE STATE OF MADHYA
 PRADESH THROUGH INSPECTOR
 GENERAL POLICE     GWALIOR
 (MADHYA PRADESH)
 2.  POLICE SUPERINTEDENT OF
 POLICE,  DISTRICT  GWALIOR
 (MADHYA PRADESH)
 3.  THANA PRABHARI MAHILA
 THANA     PADAW    GWALIOR
 (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            2

                                                            ........RESPONDENTS

        (BY SHRI C.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the

following:

                                       ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief:-

^^ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls djc} izkFkZuk gS fd ;kfpdk drkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj mlds llqjkytu mls vdkj.k ?kj ls okgj fudky fn;k mlds fy, muds }kjk ;g 'krZ j[kuk dh og viuk edku mudks ns ;g muds }kjk ngst ekWaxus dh Js.kh es vkrk gS blfy, muds fo:) vijk/k dk;e foospuk es ysdj mldh lkl] uuan] ifr] nsoj] nsojkuh leLr dks nf.Mr djus es lgk;rk iznku djsaA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds ifr ;fn dksbZ izdj.k dqVqEc U;k;ky; es yxk;k gS mldh tkudkjh mlls vftZr jsLiksMsUV iwNrkN dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks iznku djsa rkfd mlds ml izdj.k dks Xokfy;j varj.k gksdj mldh ;gka lquokbZ gks ldsaA D;ksfd tc ;kfpdk drkZ dks mldk ifr j[kuk gh ugha pkgrk gS rks og ml voLFkk es viuh iRuh dks Xokfy;j NksM j[kk gS rkss og Xokfy;j jgdj gh izdj.k dk lekuk dj U;k; izkIr dj ldsxh vU;Fkk mldh vkfFkZd voLFkk ugh gS fd og ckj&ckj Xokfy;j ls f'koiqjh tk;s mlds llqjkytu izHkko 'kkyh gksus og mlds lkFk ogka gknlk djk ldrs gSA blfy, muds fo:) vijkf/kd dk;Zokgh jsLiksMsUV~l ugh dj jgs blds fy, og ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; vk;h gS rks vU; dksbZ gknlk gksus ij mldh lquokbZ dgk vkSj dSls gksxhA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls djc} izkFkZuk gS fd jsLiksMsUV~l dks ,usDtj ih&1 ls ,usDtj ih&4 rd feyus ij ,Q0vkbZ0vkj ntZ dj vuql/a kku izkjaHk ugh fd;k tks xEHkhj fo"k; gS blfy, 3 iqfyl egkfuns'kd e0iz0 iqfyl dks ys[k djs Xokfy;j ftys es iqfyl ds joS;s o vijkf/k;ksa ls lkaB xkaB ckcr~ ys[k dj mfpr o U;k; laxr gS rkfd jsLikSMsUV~l ij mfpr dk;Zokgh foHkkxh; gks ldsA vU; vuqrks"k tks mfpr gks ;kfpdk dkrkZ dh ;kfpdk dh izd`fr vuqlkj iznku djk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA^^

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.247/2016 (Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), this application is not maintainable.

3. The moot question for consideration is that :-

"Whether an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR is tenable or not?"

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre (supra) has held as under:-

"41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be 4 exercised in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and noncompliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code.

42. Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, the informant's remedy lies under Sections 190, 200 CrPC, but a writ petition in such a case is not to be entertained. This Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra held: (SCC pp. 774-75, para

13) "13. When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report.

If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained."

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadauria (supra) has held as under:-

"(1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C can be denied to the informant /victim for non-availing of alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the informant / victim.

(2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without availing alternative remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.."

6. As the applicant has an efficacious and alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, this application is dismissed with liberty to file a criminal complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Pj'S/-