Dulichand Mevade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2018

Dulichand Mevade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2018

                                          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                1                                                         MCRC No.39142/18

                                                         MCRC No.39142/2018
                                                 (Dulichand Mewade Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
                                Indore, Dated : 19.11.2018
                                          Ms. Geetanjali Chourasiya, learned counsel for the
                                petitioner.

                                          Ms.     Archana     Kher,     learned      counsel     for   the
                                respondent/State.

Heard.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to register the FIR against his daughter-in-law Laxmibai on the alleged ground of causing murder of son of the petitioner.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that though the complaint dated 16.11.2017 was made to the police but no action has been taken.

Counsel for the State submits that the procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C. is required to be followed.

Cr.P.C. provides for a detailed procedure in case if the police does not register the FIR on the basis of the complaint. The remedy prescribed therein is to approach the Superintendent of Police and even if the S.P. does not take any action, then to file a private complaint. This Court in W.P. No.3951/2016 vide order dated 16.8.2016 has considered the entire issue in this regard and has held as under:-

“I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

The supreme court in the matter of Lalita Kumari (supra) has issued the following directions:

111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 19/11/2018 18:02:57 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 19/11/2018 18:02:57 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above€ .

 In that case the issue of maintainability of the writ petition for directing the police authority to register the FIR was not involved.

The supreme court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has held that the remedy in such matter does not lie before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but before the Magistrate concerned u/S.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It has been held that if the petitioner has a grievance that the police station is not registering the FIR u/S.154 of the Cr.P.C, then he can approach Superintendent of Police u/S.154(3) of Cr.P.C by an application in writing and even if that does not yield any satisfactory result, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application u/S.156(3) of the Cr.P.C before Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 19/11/2018 18:02:57 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH the Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct proper investigation to be made in case if it is alleged that no proper investigation was made.

Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police u/S.154(3) Cr.P.C and then approaching the Magistrate u/S.156(3) of the Cr.P.C, therefore, no case for issuing any direction in the present writ petition is made out.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available under law.”

Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner has adequate remedy under the Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the direction as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be issued and the M.Cr.C. is dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available in law.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-

Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 19/11/2018 18:02:57

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *