The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.1312 of 2024 Ramakanta Nayak … Petitioner Union of India and others … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Mrs. B. Tripathy, Advocate(OP No.1) Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC(OP Nos. 2,3, and 5) Order No. 01. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 27.09.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. The Petitioner in an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with a prayer to direct for registration of an FIR on the written complaint of the Petitioner and to arrest the accused persons by conducting proper investigation. 3. Heard, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. Bijaylaxmi Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 and Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for OP Nos. 2,3 and 5 in the matter and perused the record. None appears for OP No.4. 4. Admittedly, against non-registration of the FIR by the authority concerned, the Petitioner has not approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Further, not Page 1 of 5 only Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for approaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate or Higher Police Officials in such cases of non-registration of FIR, but also in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SCC 409 the Apex Court at paragraphs-26 & 27 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 U/S. 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Sec. 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Sec. 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate U/S. 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition U/S. 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint U/S. 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Sec. 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies. 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 Page 2 of 5 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.” 5. Very recently, the Apex Court in XYZ vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; (2023) 9 SCC 705 has quoted the observation made in Sakiri Vasu(supra) with approval which reads as under:- “19. A Division Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu vrs. State of U.P. expounded upon the Magistrate’s powers U/S. 156(3) CrPC. In this decision, the Court noted: 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 U/S. 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police U/S. 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield not 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 U/S. 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate concerned”. 6. The decision in Sakiri Vasu(supra) has been subsequently followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vrs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others; (2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein at paragraphs-2 & 3 the Apex Court has held as under:- “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu (supra) that if a person has a grievance Page 3 of 5 India, but to approach 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 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 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 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”. that Page 4 of 5 7. When the case of the Petitioner is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles as laid down by the Apex Court and the provision of Cr.P.C., it appears to the Court that at the first instance, the Petitioner should have approached the concerned authority for the grievance of non-registration of his FIR and if that effort does not yield any result, he could still have approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate, but the Petitioner has not done so. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and the law laid down by Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, this Court is not inclined to intervene in the CRLMP at this stage and accordingly, the CRLMP stands dismissed. It is, however, open to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 30-Sep-2024 10:20:00 Page 5 of 5