The same view has been reiterated in (2016) 6 SCC 277 {Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others} observing in paras 2 and 3 as follows:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409 that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or [5] DBHCP-177/2016 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) 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 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 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."
Rajasthan High Court
Chhotelal vs State (Home Department)Ors on 16 August, 2016
D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.177/2016
With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
The present petition styled as 'habeas corpus' has been filed by the husband of the lady in question Smt. Santoshi Devi. The petitioner's father lodged FIR No.59/2016 on 05.07.2016 underSection 366 IPC at P.S. [2] DBHCP-177/2016 Pratapgarh, District Alwar alleging that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have enticed his daughter-in-law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed because the police was not taking any interest in the investigation and recovery of his wife.
We have heard Counsel for the State also. The statutory period after which the accused may be entitled for bail in an offence under Section 366 IPC is 60 days under Section 167 Cr.P.C. Taking that as an approximate yardstick to test the allegation of inaction by the police, we find that the writ petition has been instituted much before that period barely 22 days after the lodging of the FIR.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the FIR has not been sent to the Court of the concerned Magistrate. There is also no pleading that no case diary was being written by the police. We put a question whether any application had been filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate concerned that investigation was not being done properly, we got no answer to the same.
The petitioner has more than sufficient remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure not only [3] DBHCP-177/2016 before the Magistrate concerned but also under Section 97 and 98of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate has enough powers inter alia under Section 172(2) Cr.P.C. to call for the case diary. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation being done, he can approach the Magistrate concerned instead of instituting multifarious proceedings both before the Magistrate and the High Court simultaneously with regard to the same issue.
In (2008) 2 SCC 409 {Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others} it has been observed in paras 25, 26 and 27 as follows:
"25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the [4] DBHCP-177/2016 Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions orSection 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
The same view has been reiterated in (2016) 6 SCC 277 {Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others} observing in paras 2 and 3 as follows:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409 that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or [5] DBHCP-177/2016 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) 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 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 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."
We are not satisfied that the present writ petition is therefore maintainable directly under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the [6] DBHCP-177/2016 petitioner files any application before the Magistrate concerned with regard to the investigation, the Magistrate is required to proceed in accordance with law.
The application is disposed as not maintainable with the observations.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (NAVIN SINHA),C.J. /KKC/ 
No comments:
Post a Comment