Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1137 (MP)

Ramnarayan Patel v. State of M. P.

2020-10-16

NANDITA DUBEY

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) A writ in nature of mandamus be issued, thereby commanding the respondent to carry out the investigation in Crime N. 276/2020, registered in Madiyadoh Police Station, district Damoh in a fair and impartial manner; (ii) Direction to the Superintendent of Police, Damoh to file the status report regarding the manner in which the investigation in the alleged crime has been carried on till the present date; (iii) Any other appropriate writ or order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iv) Cost may kindly be shouldered on the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.6.2020, it was informed by in-laws of his sister that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself. Next day, when the petitioner and his family members reached the village of her sister, it was found that the in-laws were performing the last rites of his sister without informing his elder sister residing in the nearby village. Petitioner immediately informed the police about the incident and the police took away the dead body for postmortem. At the time of post-mortem, it was found that deceased has made a note on her thigh that her in-laws have subjected to her cruelty and beaten her. The post-mortem of the dead body was also done and it was found that her death was due to strangulation, but till date, the copy of the report was not given to the petitioner. It is stated that initially as no complaint was registered by the police, a representation was submitted before the S.P., Damoh, on whose instructions, an FIR was registered on 29.8.2020. However, even after a passage of more than one month, no investigation has commenced. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent Police authorities may be directed to do fair investigation and file status report regarding the investigation in Crime No. 276/2020 registered at Police Station Madiyadoh. 3. In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :- “2. 3. In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :- “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra), that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of alternate his remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” 4. In view of the law laid down in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra), this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedy available to him under sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.