Chattisgarh High CourtMd Abdul Wahab Azad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 January, 20221\n\n                                                                 NAFR\n\n\n       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n                      WPCR No. 844 of 2021\n    Md Abdul Wahab Azad S/o Shri Sheikh Goush Ali Aged About\n     40 Years R/o Cb - 4 A. Camp - 1, Steel Nagar, Bhilai, Post\n     Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.\n                                                         ---- Petitioner\n                               Versus\n   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of\n      Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.\n   2. Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter,\n      Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.\n   3. Inspector General Of Police Raipur Chhattisgarh.\n   4. Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.\n   5. Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur\n      Chhattisgarh.\n   6. Pradip Kumar Yadav Security Guard At Composite Hospital\n      Crpf Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.\n                                                     ---- RespondentsFor Petitioner                 :        Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Adv.For State                      :        Mr. Anurag Verma, PL\n\n                 Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey\n                          Order on Board\n17.01.2022\n\n   1. Heard.2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being\n\n      aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities whereby\n\n      despite complaint made by the petitioner against respondent\n\n      No. 6, the police authorities are not investigating this matter\n\n      with fair manner.3. On the basis of this factual matrix, the petitioner has filed this\n\n      petition and prayed for following relief:-\n\n      10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue2a writ in the nature of mandamus directing concerned police\n\n  authorities to lodge the FIR accordance with law.4. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer made through this\n\n  petition.5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State\n\n  of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409,\n\n  has examined the issue in paragraphs 27 and 28 and held as\n\n  under:-"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate\n      has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and\n      to ensure a proper investigation to ensure that the\n      investigation   is   done   properly     (though   he   cannot\n      investigate himself). The High Court should discourage\n      the practice of filing a writ petition or petition underSection 482Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a\n      grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the\n      police, or after being registered, proper investigation has\n      not been done by the police. For this grievance, the\n      remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3) before the\n      concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under\n      Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a\n      criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by\n      filing a writ petition or a petition under Section Cr.P.C.28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute\n      bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if\n      there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not\n      ordinarily interfere."6. The judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri\n\n  Vasu (Supra) has again come up for consideration before\n\n  three judges Bench in case of M. Subramaniam & another\n\n  Vs. S. Janaki & another reported in 2020 SCC Online SC342.    The   Supreme        Court   after    considering    the     same\n\n  judgment has held at para 7 & 9 which are as under:-3"7. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao\n      Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, in which it is\n      observed: (SCC p. 278, paras 2-4) "2. This Court has held\n      inSakiri Vasu V. State of U.P., that if a person has a\n      grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the\n      police, or having been registered, proper investigation is\n      not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person\n      is not to go to the High Court underArticle 226of the\n      Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate\n      concerned underSection 156(3)CrPC. If such an\n      application underSection 156(3)CrPCis made and the\n      Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR\n      to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he\n      can direct proper investigation to be done which includes\n      in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending\n      change of the investigating officer, so that a proper\n      investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in\n      Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this\n      country is that the High Courts have been flooded with\n      writ   petitions   praying   for   registration   of   the   first\n      information report or praying for a proper investigation.""9. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain\n      such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such\n      writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work\n      except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have\n      held that the complainant must avail of his alternate\n      remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned underSection 156(3)CrPCand if he does so, the Magistrate\n      will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of\n      the first information report and also ensure a proper\n      investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the\n      investigation."7. From analysis of the above legal provisions, it is crystal clear\n\n   that the writ petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n\n   India is not maintainable before the High Court. However, it is\n\n   open to the petitioner to approach the court of Judicial\n\n   Magistrate First Class having territorial jurisdiction over the4place of offence if it deemed appropriate and necessary for\n\n        filing of complaint underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C orSection\n\n        200of Cr.P.C. and in-turn Magistrate will follow the procedure\n\n        prescribed under the provisions of theCr.P.C. It is made clear\n\n        that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the\n\n        case whether the averments made in the petition discloses\n\n        any criminal offence or not, it is for the concerning Magistrate\n\n        to decide the case on merits of the case without being\n\n        influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.8. Considering the facts and materials on record and in view of\n\n        the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is\n\n        of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable.9. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally\n\n        disposed of with the aforesaid liberty in favour of the\n\n        petitioner.Sd/-(Rajani Dubey)\n                                                        Judge\nv/-