Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

Urmila Bai Dode v. State of M. P.

2020-10-07

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the official respondents to initiate the criminal proceedings against the respondent No.2 in order to punish them for defalcating the investors amount and depriving of their hard earned money. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. was a credit society which had accepted money from the investors in the form of fixed deposits, but thereafter the said society had shut down the branch office and had defalcated the money. According to the petitioners they had also deposited some amount with the society and inspite of writing letters to respondent No.2 the amount was not refunded. 3. Learned counsel for State has fairly stated that till now the petitioners have not approached the official respondents for lodging the FIR and if they do so then appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken. 4. Even otherwise this court in the matter of Rahul Chopra v. State of MP passed in WP No.3951/2016 order dated 16.8.2016 has duly considered the remedy as against non recording of the FIR and has noted that the Cr.P.C prescribes for the complete procedure in this regard and the remedy of writ s not the appropriate remedy. 5. This Court in Rahul Chopra (supra) 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 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. 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. 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. 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 v. State of UP and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. 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 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.” 6. Having regard to the aforesaid and considering the fact that the petitioners have appropriate remedy available under the provisions of the Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that no case for issuing any direction in the present writ petitions is made out. The petitions are accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to avail such other remedies which are available in accordance with law. 7. The signed order be placed in the record WP No.13665/2020 & a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected WP No.13670/2020.