SAVITRI DEVI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Through: Mr.C.B. Singh, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP. SI Satya Pal, PS N.U. Pur, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Notice issued.

Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent to lodge FIR against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC.

Ld. APP has relied upon “Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others” 2008(2) SCC 409 the relevant paras are reproduced as under: “25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a Crl.M.C103/2012 proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3). If despite approaching

26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

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 to ensure can monitor investigation (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 investigation is done properly Crl.M.C103/2012 being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 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 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the complaint case under Section 200 of CrPC r/w Section 156 (3) before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma and the said complaint is fixed for hearing on 29.05.2012.

Therefore he has orally prayed that the trial court be directed to expedite the Complaint Case. Ld. APP on the other hand submits on seeing the complaint which is at page No.18. The preliminary enquiry has been conducted and aksajara has been sent however the police has received the report from the FSL in this regard.

In the circumstances I direct the SHO New Usmanpur to give the photocopy of the report to the petitioner so that he may lead evidence in support of his complaint.

I expect from the ld. court concerned to expedite the matter as possible and expeditiously. No further order required.

Crl.M.C. No.103/2012 disposed of. JANUARY 11, 2012/ns Crl.M.C103/2012 SURESH KAIT, J