Dismissed

Basant Kumar Tiwari v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2023WPCR/171/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed the writ petition seeking directions to police authorities to register an FIR and investigate allegations of harassment and forgery in a civil property dispute, holding the matter lacks criminal cognizance and alternative remedies exist.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to take action against private respondents.

Basant Kumar Tiwari Vs The State Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 171 of 2017

¶5

Basant Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Nakchhed Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 73 Years, Retired Development Extension Officer, R/o. Krishak Madwani, P.S. Pathariya, Chowki Sargaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Balram Prasad Kashyap, Head Constable, Posted at Chowki Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Ramkul Kori, Patwari of Village Madwani, P.H. No.37 & 38, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Jaya Saha W/o Jitendra Saha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Village Pacharighat, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Ajay Saha, S/o Jitendra Saha, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Pacharighat, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Appellant – Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For State/respondents No.1, 2 and 3 – Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.4 to 7 – None, not noticed.

¶17

Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board (05.01.2023)

¶18

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

¶19

The matter is listed for further hearing and with the consent of the parties, the

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

matter is heard finally.

¶22

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 not to call and disturb the petitioner for the purposes interrogation and they be directed to consider the complaint filed before the respondent No.2 dated 13-12-2016 and after the report obtained after the enquiry, the action be directed to be taken against the offenders, in accordance with law.”

¶24

1. The brief facts of this case are that, the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondents No.6 and 7 on 03-022014 pertaining to lands bearing survey Nos. 250, 251, 218, 302, 305, 246, 247 and 268 admeasuing 3.99 acres situated at Village Madwari, P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). It is further stated that survey No.241, 242 and 239 are situated in same village are still recorded in the name of the petitioner, but respondents No.6 and 7 in connivance with respondents No.4 and 5 are compelling him to transfer the land in their favour. He has further stated that a forged agreement to sell has been made by the private respondents. It is further case of petitioner that remaining amount of consideration of sale deed dated 03-022014 Rs.17,00,000/- has not been given to him by respondents No.6 and 7. It is further alleged that the order of mutation has already been passed without issuance of any proclamation or notice to the petitioner. His another grievance is that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathariya, District Mungeli has passed the order on 08-042016 in revenue case No.17A-6/2014-15 to record name of the petitioner in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge Mungeli in Civil Suit No.08A/1998 dated 02-09-2003, but the same has not been complied till date. The last grievance of the

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

petitioner, as per the writ petition is that, one Ramhula Bai has filed a civil suit to declare the sale deed dated 03-01-2014 null and void as survey No.240 situated in the same village belongs to her. The petitioner has prayed that respondents No.2 and 3, Superintendent of Police, Mungeli and Station House Officer, Pathariya, District Mungeli are compelling the petitioner to appear before them for interrogation and they are not taking any cognizance on his complaint against the private respondents.

¶27

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that police officials as well as private respondents are harassing him and they are compelling to execute a sale deed. He would further submit that a forged agreement to sell has been drafted with regard to survey Nos. 241, 242 and 239. He further submits that a complaint has been made before respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against respondents No.4 to 7, but instead of taking any action against those respondents the authorities are compelling the petitioner to appear before them for reasons best known to them. Thus, he would pray for direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against private respondents.

¶28

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconstrued. The petitioner himself has admitted that the matter involved in the case is of civil nature, but, he has filed WPCR and has prayed for a direction to the authorities to enquire into the matter and take action against the offender.Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 and 3 would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

1. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

1. In the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P .¹ the Hon'ble

¶31

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

Supreme Court has held that a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. as registration of the FIR is mandatory. But, in the instant case it is not demonstrated that any cognizable offence has been committed by the private respondents and police has not taken any cognizance.

¶34

1. In the matter of Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others² ,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the police fails to register an FIR, the modalities set out under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. are to be adopted.

¶35

1. Likewise, in the matter of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P .³ the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if a person is aggrieved that his FIR has not been registered by the police or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, the remedy available to the aggrieved person lies to approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶36

1. In the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others⁴ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 3 as under:-

¶37

“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 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 Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first

¶38

2 (2007) 6 SCC 171

¶39

3 (2008) 2 SCC 409

¶40

4 (2016) (6) SCC 277

¶41

Page 5 of 5

¶42

information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”

¶43

Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of principles of law laid down in aforementioned judgments, it appears that it is a case of civil nature and the petitioner to recover remaining consideration amount from respondents No.6 and 7, which according to him has not been paid, has filed instant petition. The petitioner has made allegation against the police officials also without any basis. The documents filed by the petitioner show that the order of mutation has already been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathariya, District Mungeli in his favour pertaining to some other land and a civil suit is also pending pertaining to some other land. The petitioner failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction or writ in his favour and against the respondents. Further, the petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy of approaching Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or to file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The petition is misconceived and sans substance. No direction can be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against the private respondents in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/Sd/-

¶45

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Judge

¶46

Aadil

Basant Kumar Tiwari v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Kumar Tiwari v. The 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

Raj Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kishore Giri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay @ Hallo Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Faguram Kevat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Babla @ Babulal Mahant and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh