The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.28 of 2022 Raghunath Mohapatra … Petitioner Mr. D.R. Sundaray, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC Order No. 14. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 04.09.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner has filed this CRLMP with following prayer:- “(i) thereby directing the opp. parties for conducting the investigation properly in respect of Info city P.S. Case No.122 of 2021 against the accused persons for commission of the offences as well as proceeding with proper investigation thereby arresting the accused persons and recover the money that has been cheated by the accused persons within a specific time limit Considering the facts and circumstances of this Case.” 4. In the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that OP-State has filed an affidavit stated to be sworn in by the IO in this case, wherein the IO has described the steps taken by the Page 1 of 5 investigating agency to nab the accused persons, but Mr. Deepak Ranjan Sundaray, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to the paragraph-6 of the affidavit submits that in fact no concrete steps have been taken by the concerned IO to arrest the accused persons. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit, to which attention of the Court is drawn, is reads as follows:- “Xxx xxx xxx However, the local Police Station assured to intimate shortly about the accused persons and their address. On verification of mobile number of accused and his associate found that the Mobile is not in active mode. Sent letter to SHO, Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, Maharastra with a request to provide the detail address of accd. Omkar Srivastab but no reply received till date. Now I am the Investigating Officer from 12.04.2023 of the said case and continued my investigation.” 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has never approached the jurisdictional Magistrate either to monitor the investigation or for the lapses of the investigating agency. In this regard, this Court gainfully refers to the paragraphs-11 and 27 of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- “11. 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 the 154 CrPC, Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) then he can approach Page 2 of 5 CrPC 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) CrPC 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. 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 the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC 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 police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.” Page 3 of 5 6. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others; (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Apex Court at paragraphs-2 and 3 has held as under:- “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (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 the Section 156(3) CrPC 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 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. is made and 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 the concerned under Section Magistrate 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information a proper report to approach remedy ensure also and Page 4 of 5 investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on going through the averments taken in the affidavit and regard being had to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter by issuing any direction to OP. 8. Hence, the CRLMP stands dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law for seeking redressal of his grievance. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Sep-2024 16:13:26 Page 5 of 5