Dismissed

Smt. Yamuna Garg v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jun 2021WPCR/388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for directing registration of an FIR for alleged atrocities, the High Court held the petition not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., following the Supreme Court's settled position in Sakiri Vasu. The writ petition was dismissed without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Judicial Magistrate First Class for filing a complaint.

Smt. Yamuna Garg Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 388 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Yamuna Garg, W/o Bhuvneshwar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village and Post- Karhi, Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Police), New Raipur, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil and Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Director General of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Inspector General of Police, Range Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, Civil & Revenue DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶12

District Magistrate, Bemetara, Civil & Revenue DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶13

Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara, Civil & Revenue District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶14

Sant Kumar Khare, S/o Namdas Khare, Aged About 22 Years.

¶15

Reshamlal, S/o Vishal Gan, Aged About 40 Years.

¶16

Sandeep Khare, S/o Sanat Khare, Aged About 30 Years.

¶17

Premdas Khare, S/o Jethu Khare, Aged About 25 Years.

¶18

Amarchand Shatruhan, S/o Gayakwad, Aged About 30 Years.

¶19

Ghanshyam, S/o Sukhram, Aged About 30 Years.

¶20

All are R/o Village Karhi, Post & Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶21

---- Respondents

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Dy. A.G.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶24

Order On Board

¶25

07.06.2021

¶26

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

Constitution of India for registration of FIR against respondent No. 7 to 12 for committing offence under Section 457, 458, 341, 294, 324 & 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(iv)(v)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶29

The brief facts as projected by the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that on 24.12.2016, respondent No. 7 to 12 entered into house of the petitioner and tried to outrage modesty of the petitioner and also used filthy language regarding caste against her as she belongs to Scheduled Caste.

¶30

The petitioner has submitted complaint on 25.12.2016 before Superintendent of Police, Bemetara as well as Incharge of Police Station- Bemetara to register offence against Sant Kumar Khare, Reshmlal, Sandeep Khare, Premdas Khare, Amarchand Shatruhan & Ghanshyam for committing offence under Section 457, 458, 341, 294, 324 & 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(iv)(v)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authorities be kindly directed to register FIR against respondent No. 7 to 12.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records annexed with the petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State would submit that from prayer clause, it is quite clear that the petitioner has filed the present petition for registration of FIR against respondent No. 7- Sant Kumar Khare, respondent No. 8- Reshamlal, respondent No. 9- Sandeep Khare, respondent No. 10- Premdas Khare, respondent No. 11- Amarchand Shatruhan & respondent No. 12Ghanshyam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again deprecated filing of writ petition before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed that the complainant should file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for issuing direction to the police to investigate on the complaint for registration of offence. The petitioner has alternate remedy of

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

filing complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court.

¶35

From perusal of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that the Magistrate may order for such investigation, if police officer is not investigating the cognizable offence. The Magistrate First Class, who is empowered under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. can take cognizance of offence upon receiving a complaint, upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. provides for examination of complainant.

¶36

Since, the petitioner has remedy of filing the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others¹ , has examined the issue in paragraphs 27 and 28, which are as under:-

¶37

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 2000 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section Cr.P.C.

¶38

It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High

¶39

1 (2008) 2 SCC 409

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

Court should not ordinarily interfere.”

¶42

The judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) has again come up for consideration before three judges bench in case of M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another² . The Supreme Court after considering the same judgment has held at para 7 & 9 which are as under:-

¶43

“7. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage³ , in which it is observed: (SCC p. 278, paras 2-4)

¶44

“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 is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶45

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 be 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

¶46

3 (2016) 6 SCC 277

¶47

2 (2020) 16 SCC 728

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

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.

¶50

In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case , the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.”

¶51

In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18-09-2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest.”

¶52

From analysis of the above legal provisions, it is crystal clear that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before the High Court. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of offence if deemed appropriate and necessary for filing of complaint and in-turn Magistrate will follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that this Court has not

¶53

Page 6 of 6

¶54

expressed any opinion on merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal offence or not.

¶55

Considering the facts and materials on record and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶56

Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with liberty as aforesaid granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶57

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶58

Arun

Smt. Yamuna Garg v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yamuna Garg v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishnakant Shrivas @ Sanju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh