HT. Kilaching Anal v. State of Manipur & Ors.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR (Video Conference)

16.03.2022 Heard Ms.Bisheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Niranjan, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner is the President of the Chandel LAMPS Society, which is a registered Society under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. By an order dated 3.8.1979, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner (TPL), Chandel allotted a plot of land to the petitioners’ Society measuring 221’ x 195’ sq.ft which was located on the side of Ring Road and opposite to the VVF Camp, Chandel and Staff Building of Education Department. Accordingly, the Society constructed its Office building with the help of fund sanctioned by the National Centre For Disease Control (NCDC). In the year 2010 the Chiefs of Hnatham, Chandel Khullen, Chandel Khubol and Chandel Christian villages interfered/trespassed into the land of the Society without any authority by disturbing administration of the Society. Again, the year 2017, aforementioned Chiefs forcibly entered the Office Building of the Society and locked the office and dismantled the fencing of the office, which was accordingly reported to the Officer-in-charge, Chandel Police Station on 23.1.2017 by the petitioner. However, no action was taken by the respondents. In the year 2018, the Chiefs of the aforementioned four villages again illegally and forcibly entered inside the office building of the Society and locked the office. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, SDO Chandel, Superintendent of Police and the Officer-in-Charge Chandel Police Station with the representation dated 31.03.2018 seeking for intervention and stopping the culprits from doing illegal acts on the land of the petitioner’s Society. However, even after a lapse of 7 (seven) months, as no action was taken, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Chandel with a representation dated 18.11.2019 requesting to lodge an FIR against the village Chiefs. As no action was taken, the petitioner also made a representation dated 14.12.2020 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandel District for taking appropriate action against the alleged culprits. As no action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus directing the respondents to investigate and take up necessary action in accordance with law and to evict the encroachers from the land of the Society or to dispose the representation of the petitioner for the ends of justice. In the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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? investigation is done properly

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 to ensure 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 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. Further, in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tamble Vs Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “2 This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008) 2 SCC 409, 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.

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 information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” In view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, 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. This Court is therefore, unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is directed to approach the Superintendent of Police, Chandel/ respondent No.2 by making a fresh representation at the earliest and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police on receipt of the representation, shall take appropriate steps as provided by law. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Furnish a copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties through their respective emails/WhatsApp. Priyojit JUDGE RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH 14:01:55 +05'30'