The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.932 of 2024 Bharati Giri … Petitioner Ms. A. Pal, Advocate State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties -versus- Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC Order No. 02. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 06.08.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Ms. A. Pal, 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 quashing the final report dated 19.12.2023 pursuant to the FIR registered under Remuna PS Case No.139 of 2023 and to hand over the investigation of this case either to CBI or to Crime Branch for proper investigation in the matter. 3. The facts in precise are that the present petitioner had filed an FIR against Baidhara Giri and Hrudaya Ranjan Giri before the IIC, Remuna PS, which came to be registered as Remuna PS Case No.108 of 2023 and in response to such FIR, Baidhara Giri has filed an FIR against the petitioner and her husband vide Remuna PS Case No.109 of 2023. While the matter Page 1 of 6 stood thus, the present petitioner again approached the IIC, Remuna Police Station for registration of case against some of the police officials of that Police Station on the allegation of attacking her and causing damage to her house at the instance of Baidhara Giri, but such effort of the petitioner remained in vain, even after approaching the SP, Balasore and thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Court of learned JMFC Rural, Balasore in 1CC Case No.36 of 2023, which was sent to the Remuna police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC which came to be registered in the present case vide Remuna PS Case No.139 of 2023. Pursuant to registration of above FIR on such complaint, the matter was investigated into, but final report was submitted therein. It is claimed by the petitioner that although there was sufficient material and evidence against the accused persons for damaging her house by causing vandalism, but the IO submitted final report instead of charge sheeting the accused police official and Baidhara Giri. Further, it is alleged by the petitioner that the investigating officer has suppressed the material facts by not examining the witnesses cited in the complaint/FIR while filing the final report on the complaint/FIR of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has directly approached this Court in this CRLMP. 4. In the course of hearing, Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that since Page 2 of 6 the action of the police is tainted with mala-fide with ulterior motive and despite the petitioner having produced sufficient material and evidence, the IO has submitted final report by depriving the petitioner of her legitimate due to proceed against the accused persons. She further submits that the investigation having not done in proper and fair manner to support the accused persons only to save and help them because they belong to police fraternity and, therefore, the investigation of this case may kindly be ordered to be handed over to some independent agency like CBI or Crime Branch. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned ASC, however, strongly opposes such prayer of the petitioner by inter alia contending that the investigation has been done properly, but the petitioner being prejudicial against the police officials has come up with this prayer. 6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the petitioner instituting a complaint vide 1CC Case No.36 of 2023 alleging against one SI and three ASI of Remunal P.S. for causing damage to her house and assaulting her, but the IO after conducting investigation has filed the final report and the result of investigation is already known to the petitioner. However, on being queried by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly and candidly admits that no protest petition has been filed by the petitioner. Despite the forum being available to the petitioner, neither she has availed the Page 3 of 6 same nor has any reason been assigned by her for not approaching the appropriate forum by way of protest petition. Further, the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate for monitoring the investigation. The Apex Court in in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SCC 409, has held the followings:- “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 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 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 Page 4 of 6 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.” It is also equally important that the dictum of Sakiri Vasu (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others;(2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein it has been held that if the High Courts entertained such writ petition, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion made hereinabove together with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe(supra) vis-a-vis taking into account the materials placed on record, since the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Court by filing a protest petition for seeking redressal of her grievance, this Court does not consider it proper to interfere in the matter by issuing any direction to the OPs. Page 5 of 6 8. Hence, the present CRLMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law for redressal of her grievance. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Aug-2024 16:58:01 Page 6 of 6