The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.115 of 2024 Sushanti Tripathy … Petitioner Mr. B.K.Sharma, Advocate -versus- Superintendent of Police, EOW, CID, Crime Branch, Odisha, Bhubaneswar … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC Order No. 02. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 29.08.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard, Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned ASC in the matter and perused the record. 3. The prayer of the petitioner in this case is for a direction to opposite party to register the complaint dated 28.05.2016 under Annexure-1 as a regular FIR. 4. It is, however, brought to the notice of the Court by learned ASC by way of producing the written instruction received from DSP, EOW, BBSR that the grievance of the petitioner has also been taken into consideration in the FIR lodged by one Dr. Rabindra Kumar Panda basing on whose information, EOW PS Case No. 9 dated 15.03.2015 was registered and the claim of the petitioner had been taken care of in such case. Page 1 of 5 5. On the other hand, Mr.Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that may the EOW has registered the FIR on the written complaint of Dr.Rabindra Kumar Panda, but the grievance of the petitioner is for a direction to opposite party for registration of FIR on the written complaint dated 28.05.2016 which discloses different offences. Mr.Sharma further by drawing attention of the Court to the reply of Superintendent of Police, EOW, Bhubaneswar to the petitioner that the petitioner may file online application, when it is invited by Government to get back her invested money, but the fact remains that the grievance of the petitioner is not for refund of money, rather for registration of the case, which has not been addressed to by the EOW of Police. 6. A perusal of the representation made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, EOW, CID, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar dated 28.05.2016 reveals a claim of Rs.4,71,000/- against Sarala Realcon Private Limited and therein the petitioner has further requested to register her complaint as an FIR and to take appropriate action in the matter to punish the culprit and provide her relief either by registering a plot in her favour or paying her back the amount received by the company with interest. Further, the written instruction so produced by Mr.K.K.Gaya reveals that the EOW has submitted a charge sheet in EOW PS Case No. 9 of 2015 by showing the petitioner as a victim to have invested Page 2 of 5 Rs.4,71,000/- in Sarala Realcon Private Limited who has failed to execute a Registered Sale Deed in terms of the promise for the investment. 7. Law is well settled that FIR can be lodged by any one and when the grievance of the petitioner has already been considered by EOW by showing her as victim in the case, there is no need to register a fresh FIR in this matter which will only lead to multiplicity of FIRs on the selfsame cause of action. Further, around 228 persons have invested the money in Sarala Realcon Private Limited and if the police would register FIR of each individual investors, then the police organization would be flooded with FIRs on the selfsame cause of action which can be avoided by registering one FIR and showing others as victim/witnesses. 8. It is, however, true that the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional forum for registration of FIR, but law in this regard has been well settled by the Apex court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SCC 409 which has been subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vrs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others; (2016) 6 SCC 277. In Sakiri Vasu (supra), the Apex court in paragraph-11 & 27 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 154 CrPC, then he can Page 3 of 5 approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) 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 investigation to provision monitor the 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 4 of 5 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, especially when the claim of the petitioner has been taken into account by EOW in EOW PS Case No. 9 of 2015 and taking into account the law laid down by Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra), this Court does not find any substance to interfere in the matter by issuing any direction to the opposite party to register the FIR on the written complaint of the petitioner. 10. Hence, the present CRLMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Aug-2024 11:57:27 kishore Page 5 of 5