Writ petition challenging police communication regarding complaints being civil in nature and seeking FIR registration. Court held writ jurisdiction unavailable due to existence of alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
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.
wp.370.18.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 370 OF 2018
Babubhai Muljibhai Savalia ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Shrinivas Bobde a/w Mr. Sandeep Maurya for the Petitioner
Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar, A.P.P for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-State
Mr. A. R. Gole for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. THURSDAY, 14th JUNE, 2018
P.C. :
1 The above Petition has been filed seeking reliefs in respect of
the communication of the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivli Police Station,
wherein it has been mentioned that the grievance made in the complaint of the Petitioner dated 29th October 2015, is civil in nature and therefore, the Petitioner should seek appropriate recourse in a Civil Court. The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the said communication of the Senior Inspector of Police. It seems that the Petitioner has addressed three complaints which are dated 29th October 2015, 1st April 2016 and 2nd June 2016 to the Borivli
1/3
SQ Pathan
wp.370.18.18.doc
Police Station, which has resulted in the conclusion reached by the Police as reflected in the communication of the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivli Police Station.
2 The second relief sought in the above Petition is to direct the Respondent No. 3 to register an FIR on the basis of the said complaints of the Petitioner. In the context of the said relief, a useful reference could be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P & Ors.1 . The Apex Court has held in the said judgment that against the nonregistration of the FIR by the Police, the aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or can file an application before the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The Apex Court opined that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked for such a relief as an alternative remedy by way of an application under Section 156(3) was available. The said judgment of the Apex Court is a reiteration of the judgment of the Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2 , wherein the Apex Court has held that recourse to Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. was required to be adopted. In
2 (2007) 6 SCC 171
1 AIR 2008 SC 907
2/3
SQ Pathan
wp.370.18.18.doc
our view, having regard to the said judgments of the Apex Court in the case
of Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Aleque Padamsee (supra) , the Petitioner would have to be relegated to the remedy by way of an application under Section 156(3) before the appropriate Court and it is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to entertain the above Writ Petition.
3 By relegating the Petitioner to the said remedy, the above Writ Petition is disposed of.
4 Needless to state that if any such application is filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from date, the concerned Court would dispose
of the same expeditiously.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
R. M. SAVANT, J.
3/3
SQ Pathan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition for quashing a police communication and directing FIR registration when an alternative remedy exists under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the writ jurisdiction can be invoked instead of applying under Section 154(3) or Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for non-registration of FIR
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P & Ors.Explained¶16
(2007) 6 SCC 171 · Who else cites this
Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.Distinguished¶16
1 AIR 2008 SC 907 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babubhai Muljibhai Savalia
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Savant
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
