2006 JTR(SC) 551
2006 6 ADJ 93 ; 2006 43 AIC 1 ; 2006 4 AICLR 174 ; 2006 3 AIR(Jhar)(R) 566 ; 2006 AIR(SC) 2464 ; 2006 AIR(SCW) 3230 ; 2006 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 344 ; 2006 5 AllLJ 345 ; 2006 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 2366 ; 2006 3 BBCJ(SC) 519 ; 2006 3 CriCC 274 ; 2006 CriLR 673 ; 2006 2 CriLR(Cal) 366 ; 2006 3 Crimes(SC) 109 ; 2006 CrLJ 3283 ; 2006 130 DLT 591 ; 2006 3 EastCrC(SC) 255 ; 2006 ILR(Kar) 3843 ; 2006 2 JCC 992 ; 2006 3 JLJR(SC) 247 ; 2006 3 KLT 269 ; 2006 3 RCR(Cri) 265 ; 2006 4 RLW(Raj) 2731 ; 2006 7 SBR 499 ; 2006 6 Scale 489 ; 2006 5 SCC 733 ; 2006 3 SCC(Cri) 63 ; 2006 7 SCJ 419 ; 2006 Supp3 SCR 59 ; 2006 2 WBLR 695 ; 2006 2 WLC 350 ; 2006 KHC 844 ; 2006 5 Supreme 513
2006(5) Supreme 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constition of India)
Arijit Pasayat and Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Hari Singh — Petitioner
versus
The State of U.P. — Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 140 of 2006
Decided on 16-6-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Parmanand Katara, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Ms. Kusum Lata Sharma, Albel Bhati, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
When information of cognizable offence is laid with police but no action is taken, complainant can under section 190 r/w 200 Cr.P.C. lay complaint before the Magistrate and that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.156, S.200, S.190
(A) The petitioner approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for a CBI enquiry into a murder case, alleging police inaction despite the filing of a First Information Report (FIR). The Court analyzed the statutory framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 154, which mandates the recording of information in cognizable cases and provides a remedy via the Superintendent of Police if the officer in charge refuses to act. Furthermore, Section 156 empowers police officers to investigate cognizable cases without a Magistrate's order, while Section 190 read with Section 200 provides an alternative judicial remedy where a complainant may approach a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence. The Court emphasized that when the police fail to act on an FIR, the prescribed legal remedy is to seek judicial intervention through a Magistrate under Chapter XV of the Code, rather than filing a writ petition.
(B) A writ petition is not maintainable for seeking an investigation or directions for police action when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides specific statutory remedies through the Magistrate's court under Sections 190 and 200.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's son, a government official, was found dead in his official residence. The petitioner alleged that the death was a murder and not a suicide, as claimed by the police and certain relatives. Despite filing an FIR and making several representations to authorities, the petitioner claimed that no positive steps were taken due to the influence of powerful individuals and that he was being harassed.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had failed to utilize the alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that if a complainant is dissatisfied with the police investigation or the lack thereof, the appropriate course of action is to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court noted that established precedents prohibit the entertainment of writ petitions in such circumstances.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable to seek a CBI investigation when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides alternative remedies for police inaction on an FIR.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a comprehensive mechanism for addressing police inactionspecifically the power of a Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 and conduct an enquiry under Section 200the High Court or Supreme Court should not entertain a writ petition for the same purpose.
Result:
The writ petition was dismissed.
(A) The petitioner approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for a CBI enquiry into a murder case, alleging police inaction despite the filing of a First Information Report (FIR). The Court analyzed the statutory framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 154, which mandates the recording of information in cognizable cases and provides a remedy via the Superintendent of Police if the officer in charge refuses to act. Furthermore, Section 156 empowers police officers to investigate cognizable cases without a Magistrate's order, while Section 190 read with Section 200 provides an alternative judicial remedy where a complainant may approach a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence. The Court emphasized that when the police fail to act on an FIR, the prescribed legal remedy is to seek judicial intervention through a Magistrate under Chapter XV of the Code, rather than filing a writ petition.
(B) A writ petition is not maintainable for seeking an investigation or directions for police action when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides specific statutory remedies through the Magistrate's court under Sections 190 and 200.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's son, a government official, was found dead in his official residence. The petitioner alleged that the death was a murder and not a suicide, as claimed by the police and certain relatives. Despite filing an FIR and making several representations to authorities, the petitioner claimed that no positive steps were taken due to the influence of powerful individuals and that he was being harassed.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had failed to utilize the alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that if a complainant is dissatisfied with the police investigation or the lack thereof, the appropriate course of action is to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court noted that established precedents prohibit the entertainment of writ petitions in such circumstances.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable to seek a CBI investigation when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides alternative remedies for police inaction on an FIR.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a comprehensive mechanism for addressing police inactionspecifically the power of a Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 and conduct an enquiry under Section 200the High Court or Supreme Court should not entertain a writ petition for the same purpose.
Result:
The writ petition was dismissed.
AlternativeRemedy - Cited for the principle that a writ petition is not to be entertained when the remedy under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the CrPC is available.
AlternativeRemedy - Cited to reaffirm the position that a writ petition for police investigation is not maintainable when alternative remedies exist.
AlternativeRemedy - Cited to reaffirm the position that a writ petition for police investigation is not maintainable when alternative remedies exist.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. — This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) is for a direction to conduct enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the ‘CBI’) into the murder of one Yashvir Singh, son of the petitioner. The allegation is that though First Information Report (in short the ‘FIR’) has been lodged with the police to the effect that said Yashvir Singh has been murdered and has not committed suicide, because of the pressure of some influencial people, police has not taken any positive steps, and on the contrary the petitioner is being harassed and threatened by certain persons. As culled out from the petition, said Yashvir Singh was posted as Additional Commissioner of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh and was found dead in his official residence on 19th January, 2006. Petitioner made a grievance that the police officials in collusion with some relatives - more particularly in-laws of the deceased-Yashvir Singh are projecting it as a case of suicide. It is stated that the petitioner has made several representations to various authorities, but without any avail. It is pointed out that the Superintendent of Police had directed the officer in charge of the concerned police to enquire into the matter in view of the allegations made by the petitioner. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that no action has been taken purportedly on the basis of the pressure exercised by some influential people who were inimical to the deceased though they are related to him. In essence grievance is that no action is being taken on the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner.
2. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) relates to “Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate”. Section 154 reads as follows :
Information in cognizable cases. — (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him; in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
3. Section 156 deals with “Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases” and the same reads as follows :
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage by called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
4. When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Reg) through its President v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 11 SCC 582]. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
5. The above position was again highlighted recently in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768] and in Minu Kumari and Another v. State of Bihar and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 359].
6. That being so, this petition is not to be entertained. It is case of the petitioner that he is under constant threat by some persons and his life and property are in danger. If he seeks any protection, it is the duty of the concerned police officials to provide such security as are warranted in the circumstances in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
*****************