Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1009 (CAL)

Ramesh Sah v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-08-01

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2011
Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 25, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “c. A writ of or in the nature of a Mandamus or appropriate directions do issue commanding and directing the respondents particularly respondent no.2 to act on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in complaint to the police authorities and further commanding the respondents to apprehend the persons being respondents nos. 3 to 8 herein as mentioned in the writ petition as well as in the complaint to the police authorities forthwith and to bring them to justice and ensure the possession of the petitioner over the said premises and further to prevent the respondents nos. 3 to 8 from interfering in possession of the petitioner over the said premises.” Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. In spite of written information by the petitioner the officer in charge of the police station concerned did not register any FIR. The petitioner has not gone to the Criminal Court seeking an order directing the officer in charge to register an FIR, because, in view of s.173(2) CrPC, until the police submit a report after making investigation and the petitioner is given necessary information the petitioner is not entitled to go to the Criminal Court. In my opinion, the argument is misconceived. When the officer in charge decided not to register any FIR, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226 seeking an order directing him to register an FIR, the petitioner ought to have approached the Criminal Court with his complaint examining which the Criminal Court could consider the question of passing an order either under s.156(3) or s.190 CrPC. The Criminal Court is competent to pass an order directing the officer in charge to register an FIR, investigate the case and submit report. An order that, if at all, would have been passed by the Criminal Court after examining the worth of the allegations is not to be passed by the High Court under art.226. It is not appropriate to exercise power under art.226 for examining the worth of the allegation and recording a prima facie finding regarding commission of cognizable offence by the private respondents. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs