Petitioner sought writ directing police to register FIR based on a 2019 complaint alleging cognizable offence. Court held High Court cannot direct FIR registration under Article 226 and held aggrieved party must approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed.
None granted; petitioner directed to approach competent Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4506 of 2020
Petitioner :- Neha Madaan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
The petitioner has filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to conduct free and fair investigation with respect to complaint dated 3.7.2019 registered with CAW Cell, U.P.
The sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that as the complaint dated 3.7.2019 discloses cognizable offence, the police concerned is obliged to register an FIR in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
There can be no dispute as to the above proposition of law. But where despite disclosure of commission of cognizable offence, FIR is not being registered, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot direct the police to register an FIR. Reference is made to a recent decision of the Apex Court in M. Subramaniam and another vs. S. Janaki and another in Criminal Appeal No.102/2011 decided on 20.3.2020 wherein the direction for registering an FIR, made by the High Court was set aside.
It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Tambe (supra) are quoted hereunder:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is,
prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of her grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can direct police to register FIR under Article 226 if complaint discloses cognizable offence
Whether remedy for unsatisfactory investigation or non-registration of FIR is to approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and OthersFollowed¶7
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1. · Who else cites this
M. Subramaniam and another vs. S. Janaki and anotherFollowed¶8
M. Subramaniam and another vs. S. Janaki and another in Criminal Appeal No.102/2011 decided on 20.3.2020
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Applied¶9
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersApplied¶9
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersReferred¶10
Tambe (supra)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Neha Madaan
State Of U.P.
Other 2
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
