Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
W.P.No.16262/2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.-16262-2019
(GURDEEP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
Gwalior, Dated :14/08/2019
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Varun Kushik, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal arbitrary action on the part of the Police Authorities, whereby they are trying to implead the petitioner as accused for an offence of robbery which was never committed by the petitioner.
2. It is alleged that the story of the Police Authorities is highly improbable and amounts to snatching away the constitutional right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India. Therefore, he has filed present petition for seeking the following reliefs;
1. That, the Respondent Police Station Baraso, District Bhind may kindly be directed not arrest or harrass the petitioner in wake of the aforementioned offence registered in Crime No. 39/2019 dated 14.06.2019.
2. That, in alternate if the name of the petitioner has already added or during pendency of the present petition his name is added as as accused in aforementioned Crime then same may kindly be eradicated.
3. That, the Respondent, Superintendent of Police, District Bhind, may kindly be directed to pass an order of enquiry in the 2 W.P.No.16262/2019 matter by any Superior Police Officer in the interest of justice.
3. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has submitted a detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police District, Bhind but the aforesaid representation has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities. Therefore, he has prayed for disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police for considering the representation submitted by the petitioner and to held an inquiry into the matter and the till conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner's name may not be included for an offence registered at Crime No.39/2019 at P.S. Baraso, District Bhind.
4. Per Contra learned Government has submitted that petition is not maintainable for the aforesaid reliefs. If the petitioner in any condition is affected by the aforesaid registration of criminal case, he is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code and writ petition directly before this Hon'ble Court is not maintainable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of record it is seen that, an FIR has been registered at Crime No.39/2019 at P.S. Baraso District Bhind for the offence punishable u/S.394 IPC and 11/13 of 3 W.P.No.16262/2019 MPDVPK Act, is registered by complainant Monu Bhadoriya. The petitioner has alleged that the Police Authorities want to implead the name of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Mere on the apprehension, no order can be passed by this Court. Even otherwise the petitioner is having a remedy under the Cr.P.C. for seeking fair investigation into the matter he has can approach the learned trial Court by filing appropriate application for the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aleque padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has been subsequently reiterated and reaffirmed in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors, [(2016) 6 SCC 277] as follows :-
"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, 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.4 W.P.No.16262/2019
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."
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 338 has held as under;
6. Before parting the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience :-
(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.. (3) Subject to (1) supra the informant / victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged. (4) Subject to (1) supra the proposed accused against whom the first information of commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 5 W.P.No.16262/2019
8. Thus, considering the fact that if the petitioner is of the opinion that no fair investigation has been conducted in the matter by the Police and his name can unnecessarily be involved in the aforesaid Crime then he is having alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the concerned court for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner is seeking aforesaid reliefs is not maintainable.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Vishal Mishra)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2019.09.11
09:58:37 +05'30'