AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (oral)
The petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks directions to official respondents No. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents No. 3 to 14 after thorough investigation of complaints/representations dated 15.04.2025 and 11.11.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was elected as Director of Postal and RMS Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ambala Cantt, on 8.10.2023 along with 11 other Directors. Recruitment of employees was done in the Society and illegal amount was charged for selection of candidates to whom appointment letters were issued. Police was approached regarding the irregularities conducted by private respondents but no action was taken.
Notice of motion to official respondents only.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of State and on instructions from ASI Rajesh Kumar, submits that complaint of the petitioner was received on 12.11.2024, an inquiry was conducted therein by Economic Offences Wing which concluded on 07.12.2024. Statements of petitioner and private respondents were recorded but no cognizable offence was found made out. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“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 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. 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.
In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“2.This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance 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 India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C 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 case 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 that 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.”
Similar were observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341.
Police has filed complaint of petitioner. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) BNSS), is wide enough and empowers a Magistrate to pass orders for registration of FIR, such other orders as may be necessary for monitoring investigation and for ensuring proper investigation. Since, there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, invocation of extra-ordinary remedy under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not warranted.
The petition stands disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, if she so desires.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.