Writ Petition No. 17641 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 154, 154(3), 156(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In another decision in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & others, it is held thus: (para [2] 13) When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190…
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to register a case basing on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 09.05.2012.
The grievance of the petitioner is that complaint, dated 09.05.2012, filed by him is not being registered.
An alternative remedy is available to the petitioner in
case of non-registering the First Information Report by Police. In a decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [1] , it is held thus:
In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
In another decision in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & others, it is held thus: (para [2] 13)
When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would.issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and others (1997) Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 303. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
It is needless to observe that it is for the police to register a case if the un-controverted allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie cognizable offence.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petition under law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Date: 14.06.2012 ES _ _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.34224 OF 2011
08.06.2012 [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409 [2]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.