The High Court emphasized that petitions for FIR registration and proper investigation must be directed to the Magistrate under S.156(3) Cr.P.C., not through writ petitions.

1. Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajesh Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.

2. I. A. No.11801/2021, an application for urgent hearing is disposed of.

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

4. The present petition, under S.482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for lodging the FIR against the accused persons and for doing fair investigation in the matter.

5. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was having a land in her possession bearing survey No.640 area 2.020 hectare at village Rahugaon, Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. On 22.09.2016, accused Shivram Jatav along with Sub- Registrar, Tahsil Sabalgarh, Narayan Jatav and Chaturbhuj has made a forged and fabricated sale - deed of the aforesaid land. It is alleged that the petitioner and her children did not signed on the sale deed and even the witness, whose name was mentioned in the sale deed, is not present in the village.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow lady and with the intention to usurp the land, the accused persons have made a conspiracy and with the help of SubRegistrar, Tahsil Sabalgarh, forged sale deed has been executed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a complaint but the police officials are not lodging the FIR and not investigating the matter. For this, she has made several representations to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh and police Authorities with regard to registration of FIR and for doing fair investigation in the matter, but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

7. Per contra learned Panel Lawyer 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 S.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 under S.482 of Cr.P.C. As such, the present petition is liable to dismissed at the threshold.

8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

9. 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 S.154, Cr. P. C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under S.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 S.156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under S.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 v. 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 S.156(3), Cr. P. C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper inve