Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1178 (MP)

Bharti Tomar v. State of M. P.

2013-09-27

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. The complaint made by the petitioner is that no action is being taken by the respondents-authorities against one Pushpa Devi. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents-authorities to investigate into the matter and to register a case against the aforesaid lady. The reliefs are claimed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. 2. The issue is to be looked into by the respondents-authorities and in case a complaint is made with respect to registration of offence and no action is taken by the authorities, it is open to the complainant, petitioner in the present case, to lodge a complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate. In the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 , the Apex Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, if approached by a complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to any cognizable case, he is required to record the statement and exercise the powers available under Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate if, 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 the offence under Chapter-XII of the Code and to submit a report to the Magistrate. In case it is found by the Magistrate 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 of Criminal Procedure. In such a case, if the grievance is raised, a proper procedure is prescribed to investigate such grievance. Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 . 3. The Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others, (2008) 3 SCC 542 , in para 50 of the report has held thus: 50. Can the High Court set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on the information received by it without recording the reasons that the information received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence? Can the High Court set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on the information received by it without recording the reasons that the information received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence? Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences, which cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of anonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot be converted into station houses. 4. In view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court, it is not necessary for this Court to exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Magistrate, if she still feels aggrieved by any action of the respondents-authorities, under the procedure laid-down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.