IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Sunaina – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2483 of 2022
Decided On : 10-08-2022
FIR Registration - Alternative Remedy - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Section 154 Cr.P.C., Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief for the registration of an FIR against certain respondents. The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by the Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court referred to the legal position established in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. and Others, M.Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki, and Shweta Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & others, emphasizing that the remedy for aggrieved persons regarding FIR registration lies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, and not through a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's petition under Article 226 seeking relief for FIR registration could be entertained, considering the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained and emphasized the need for aggrieved persons to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for FIR registration, as established in previous legal precedents.
Final Decision: The petition under Article 226 was dismissed, with the direction for the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents/Police Authority in not registering the FIR against respondents No.4 to 7. Directions may be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 to register the FIR as prayed.
3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State 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.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others ((2008)2 SCC 409) 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 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) 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 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.
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
14. Section 156 (3) states:
'Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.'
The words as abovementioned obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19).]
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Mag
Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi 2007 (10) JT 585
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. And Others (2008)2 SCC 409)
Shweta Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & others (2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338)
State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hent Dhage mant Yashwaand Others (2016)6 SCC 277)
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the remedy for aggrieved persons seeking FIR registration lies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, and not throu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy for aggrieved persons seeking the registration of an FIR is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not to file....
Availability of alternative efficacious remedy under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking the registration of an FIR.
The main legal principle established is that when an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court should not entertain the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a person has a grievance regarding the lodging of an FIR or the conduct of a proper investigation, the remedy lies in approaching the Mag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy for FIR registration lies under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and not through a writ petition.
The petitioner should avail the alternative efficacious remedy under the Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court with a writ petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.