Hanumant Singh Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The principal grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having informed the police vide P/1 regarding commission of cognizable offence, FIR has not been lodged u/S.154 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.4 and 5 and therefore, a direction is sought to the police authorities to take action by registration of offence on the basis of information supplied by the petitioner vide P-1.

The issue raised in this petition is no more res-integra in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shweta Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2017(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 338, which has been rendered after relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court decision in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582 and reiterated in Gangadhar's case (supra) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 733, Minu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 5 SCC 733, and Ramesh Kumar Vs. ( NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677, we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar's case (supra), Minu Kumari's case (supra) and Hari Singh's case (supra). The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) was re- iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. V. State of Bihar (AIR 2006 SC 3376). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar's case (supra), Hari Singh's case (supra) and Minu Kumari's case (supra). The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Sections 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with WP(C) 530/2002 and WP(C) 221/2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions.

The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:

(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.

(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.

(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the concerned government to deal with the prayer. The concerned government would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

In view of above, this Court declines interference in the matter and leaves it for the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available u/S.154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition stands disposed of.