The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking fair investigation and relief from harassment.

ORDER :

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the respondents be directed to conduct fair and proper investigation/enquiry in pursuance of FIR (P/1) registered by the petitioner against the accused persons in a specified time frame.

(ii) That, the respondent's police authority be further directed not to harass the petitioner and his family members based on the frivolous allegation made by the accused persons against them and restrain themselves from leaking false news to the press against the petitioner and his family members.

(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost of awarded."

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that on 16/2/2021 the petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused persons namely Babita and Gagandeep, his tenants, alleging commission of theft of cash and gold jewelry. Based thereupon, Crime has been registered against the accused persons at Crime No. 74/21 for the offences punishable under sections 380 and 454 of the IPC. After registration of FIR, accused Babita has been arrested and recovery of part of stolen articles has been made from her. However, the co-accused is still absconding.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after arrest of accused Babita, the police Authorities have now started harassing the petitioner and his family members based on false statement given by Babita who is trying to divert the whole matter by managing and misguiding the police Authorities saying that the petitioner and his family members are involved in flesh trade. The police Authorities are not only trying to divert the whole matter in a new direction but without conducting a proper investigation and cross-checking the statement of the accused are sharing the information of the case with the media which is causing irreparable injury and loss of reputation to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that direction may be issued to conduct fair and proper investigation/enquiry in pursuance of FIR (Ex. P/1) and respondents/Police Authority may be directed not to harass the petitioner and his family members based on frivolous allegations.

5. Per contra learned Panel Lawyer contends that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that it is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the present petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.

6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (AIR 2008 SC 907) has 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, Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FTR 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). Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FTR 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.

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi (JT