The main legal principle established is that aggrieved persons should approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for FIR registration and proper investigation, as per the judgments in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, and T.C. Thangaraj v. V.Engammal.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant petition seeks a direction to the respondents-State to ensure proper investigation whereby they be directed to lodge FIR in the present matter under the relevant provisions envisaged in the Indian Penal Code relating to the outraging of the modesty and chastity of a woman, sexual assault on a woman, disrobing a woman, attempt to commit rape on a woman etc. along with the offences as provided under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 i.e. commission of atrocities by a member of Non-Scheduled Caste on any person belonging to Scheduled Caste by way of causing injury, insult or annoyance, forcibly removing clothes, assault or using force with intent to dishonour or outraging modesty of a Scheduled Caste person etc.

2. It is by now well settled that if a person has grievance that FIR has not been registered by the police or having been registered, proper investigation has not been done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to come 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.

3. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 which judgment was followed by two Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 and both these judgments in turn have now been followed by three Hon'ble Judges Bench in M.Subramaniam and another vs. S.Janaki and another, (2020) 2 RCR(Cri) 788 wherein it has been observed as under:

"5. While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 in which it has been inter alia held as under:

"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 this Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11)

"11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code th