Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19982
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
MUHAMMED ALTHAF, – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, – Respondent
WP(C)/34879/2019
K.A.JALEEL, C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.REKHA.S
Complaints about cognizable offences must be addressed through established procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, not via writ petitions.
Headnote:
Writ - Corruption Allegations - Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 - Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 190, 200 - The court held that inaction on complaints must be pursued through proper procedures under the Code rather than by writ petitions, emphasizing the necessity of following established legal procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ mandamus for an enquiry into alleged corrupt practices regarding Panchayat project tenders and reported that the Director, VACB, failed to act upon the complaint submitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Director, VACB, did not take necessary action on the complaint as required and that the appropriate remedy would be to follow procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the petitioner could seek a writ for action on a complaint concerning a cognizable offence when there was inaction by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a complainant must follow the criminal procedure for redressal of grievances and cannot directly approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction for non-action on lodged complaints.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed; petitioner may seek remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT
The reliefs sought in this writ petition are the following:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding maintenance, as per Projects No.67/17,82/17 and 160/17 as part of the Annual Project 2016-17 and register criminal case against the then Panchayath Committee members and other persons involved in the project under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 2018;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P8 representation within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
iii. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. The petitioner had made Ext.P8 complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), the fifth respondent herein, regarding the corrupt practices committed in connection with the implementation of the projects approved by the third respondent Panchayat for the installation of street lights in the Panchayat. It is alleged by the petitioner that, instead of inviting e-tenders, open tenders were invited for conducting the work and that the tender submitted by a private company quoting higher rate was accepted, ignoring the tenders which quoted lower rates.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Director, VACB has not taken any legal action on the basis of Ext.P8 complaint.
4. Though the second respondent has filed a counter statement, the fifth respondent (the Director, VACB) has not filed any statement.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court inLalita Kumari v. Government of U.P : (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held that, when information regarding a cognizable offence is received by the police officer concerned, he is bound to register a first information report. It has also been held that, in cases where there is doubt as to whether there has been commission of any cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted only to ascertain whether the information or the complaint received reveals commission of such an offence.
7. In the instant case, there is no material to show that, when Ext.P8 complaint was received by the Director, VACB, he had taken any action on that complaint as enjoined in Lalita Kumari (supra). If the Director, VACB was not the police officer concerned to take such action, he should have forwarded the complaint to the police officer concerned for taking such action. There are no materials placed before this Court by the fifth respondent to show that he had taken any action on Ext.P8 complaint.
8. What is the remedy of a person on inaction on the part of the police on the information given by him regarding the commission of a cognizable offence? Is it his remedy to rush to the High Court and to file a writ petition seeking action on the complaint given by him to the police?
9. When information with regard to the commission of any cognizable offence is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant/aggrieved person has right under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Instead of adopting or availing that procedure, he is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct investigation into the complaint filed by him before the police (See All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union v. Union of India: (1996) 11 SCC 582 , Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India: (2007) 6 SCC 171 , Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P : AIR 2008 SC 907 , Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277 and M. Subramaniam v.
