Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shweta Bhadauriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 21 June, 2016
1 W.P.No.2058/2016
(Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
21.6.2016.
Shri Devendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Petitioner has filed this petition alleging that respondent No.4/SHO, police Station, University, Distt. Gwalior, is not registering the FIR against the culprits, who have committed offence of cheating and forgery.
It is the contention of the petitioner that once she had reported commission of a cognizable offence to the SHO vide communication Annexure P/2, sent by speed post on 1 st February, 2016, then the SHO was required to register an FIR.
In the opinion of this Court, if the SHO has not registered an FIR under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, then in terms of the provisions of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., the complainant can send the substance of the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned. In the present case, said communication was made vide Annexure P/3 on 2.2.2016, therefore, petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned. On such complaint, the Magistrate can direct registration of the FIR and / or proper investigation into the alleged offence and he can also monitor the investigation. Apart from that, complainant has a third alternative remedy by way of filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it is not proper to straightway entertain a writ petition without insisting that the complainant first avails of those alternative remedies. In the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mharte Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2 W.P.No.2058/2016 (2004) 7 SCC 768 vide paragraph 14 the Supreme Court observed that writ petition was not the proper remedy without availing the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C.
In view of the above referred case law and also in view of the fact that there are alternative statutory remedies open to the petitioner, it is not proper for the petitioner to straightway rush to the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without availing of remedies stated above.
For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that since petitioner has an alternative remedy, this petition cannot be entertained unless such statutory remedies are exhausted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that if so desired, she may file an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned or may file a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-