A. Kishore Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 36, 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200, 482
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19769 OF 2010 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the inaction of the police in registering a crime based on his complaint with regard to the theft of his vehicle. Earlier, this Court by order dated 14.07.2010 in W.P.No.16253 of 2010 directed the petitioner to avail the remedy provided to him in this regard under Sections 154 (3) or 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”). It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of his approaching the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Saifabad, Hyderabad, no action has been taken in the matter. The petitioner further states that he could not invoke the remedy available under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as the names of the offenders are unknown to him and he could not avail Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. by filing a private complaint, so as to bring into play Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. I am disinclined to accept this submission.
There is no requirement either in Section 190 Cr.P.C or in Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the names of the offenders/accused be disclosed as a condition precedent for the Magistrate to take cognizance or to direct investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Whatever be the nature of the criminal offence alleged in the complaint, the proper course for an unsuccessful complainant is to seek registration of the crime under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent authority and not rush to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or by way of a Writ Petition. The observations of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[1], in this regard are apposite.
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. If despite approaching the 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?
In the light of the aforestated observations, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Magistrate concerned and this Court would not ordinarily be inclined to interfere in the first instance in such matters.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR August 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19769 OF 2010 August 11, 2010 [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409
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.