SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Arvind Bhilware – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Thagley – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10047 of 2022
Decided On : 10-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
None for The Petitioner Even In The Second Round, for the Appellant; Respondent No.8 By Shri Valmik Sakargayen Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent

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 a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

FIR Registration - Article 226 Petition - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Section 154 Cr.P.C., Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Section 190 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the registration of FIRs and the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIRs and ensure proper investigation. The court emphasized that the remedy for aggrieved persons is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted the wide powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure a proper investigation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the registration of an FIR against certain respondents. The Government Advocate contended that the relief cannot be granted as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should avail the alternative efficacious remedy as envisaged under the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the remedy for aggrieved persons is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's request for relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the registration of an FIR could be entertained, considering the alternative efficacious remedy available under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should avail the alternative efficacious remedy as envisaged under the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the remedy for aggrieved persons is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed 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:-

    7-1 ;g fd] jLikUMUV dekd 1 yxk;r 3 dks ;g funf'kr fd;k tkos fd jsLikUMUV dekd 4 yxk;r 8 ds fo:) dk;okgh dj muds fo:) rRdky ,Q-vkb-vkj- ntZ djsA^^

    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:

      âAny Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.â 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 Magistrate which

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top