Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 14 (MP)

Satyendra Singh Sikarwar v. State of M. P.

2016-01-05

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a grievance that registration of case by respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer upon a complaint filed by respondent No.7 was without jurisdiction and thereafter direction to the Sub-Registrar by him vide communication dated 4.12.2015 to ensure registration of FIR is also in excess of his authority as Sub-Divisional Officer. 2. It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer may be an Executive Magistrate but he draws jurisdiction to register a case under the provisions of an Act. He cannot wield his power by executive fiat and issue directions to the Sub-Registrar for registration of an FIR on complaint filed by respondent No.7. If such course of action is permitted to continue by Executive Magistrates, the same may lead to a state of chaos as persons having any grievance, instead of filing an FIR, may approach such Executive Magistrates seeking direction for registration of FIRs. It is submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is a self contained Code whereunder exhaustive provisions have been made in the matter of registration of FIR and also for investigation at the instance of Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offences as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code. 3. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for quashment of the order (Annexure P-1), as well as, letter (Annexure P-2) addressed to Sub-Registrar dated 4.12.2015. 4. The opening words of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. "Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station ..........." itself suggests that what is important for concerning Officer-in-charge is the factum of information and not the source of that information. If respondent No.7, a poor, rustic, village woman had made a complaint to the concerning Sub-Divisional Officer of having been subjected to fraud or misrepresentation depriving her of her right to property, under Article 300A of the Constitution has approached the SDO seeking justice, in the opinion of this Court the Executive Magistrate was fully competent to ensure that the poor, rustic, village woman, otherwise insecure, is provided protection and also to ensure legal action against the erring persons. 5. 5. Therefore, no illegality is committed by the SDO and he cannot be said to have acted in excess of his jurisdiction in registering the case on 4.12.2015 and after notice to the petitioner directing the Sub-Registrar vide detailed letter dated 4.12.2015 seeking registration of FIR. Mere information supplied by the Sub-Registrar to the concerning SHO cannot be faulted for the reason that it would be only an information as understood in the context of section 154, CrPC. Registration of FIR by itself is not conclusive and does not attaches finality to the allegations made therein as the FIR shall be subject to investigation and verification of facts. The contention that the Magistrate has acted under section 156(3) of the Code as if he has power to take cognizance under section 190 of the Code, in the opinion of this Court, is misconceived proposition as the information sought to be supplied to Police through Sub-Registrar is only an information and no command to the Police to do the investigation. Section 156(3) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the direction issued to the Sub-Registrar by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be in excess of his Authority. 7. Before parting with the aforesaid case, it is considered apposite to observe that any observation made by respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer in his letter to the Sub-Registrar directing for registration of complaint and any observation of this Court, shall not have bearing on the investigation, to be conducted by the concerning SHO independently with due advertence to the material placed before him during the course of investigation. 8. Petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.