Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 183 (PAT)

Ajit Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2020-02-19

ARVIND SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The present writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to institute an F.I.R. and take action against the respondent no. 5. 3. It is submitted that petitioner took a flat for 11 months on basis of lease deed executed between him and the flat owner. After about fifteen days from the date he took possession of the flat one, respondent no. 5 threatened him to vacate the flat otherwise to be ready to face dire consequences. On 08.08.2019, respondent no. 5 entered into 4. his flat abused him and threatened to vacate the flat otherwise he will be murdered. Petitioner reported the matter to S.H.O. Airport Police Station, Patna, but no action was taken. Thereafter petitioner submitted an application (Annexure-4) to the Sr. S.P., Patna complaining against the S.H.O. The respondent no. 5, on getting knowledge about the complain made by the petitioner, ousted him from his flat and locked the same, but no protection was provided by the police. It is further submitted that the accused persons are still moving freely without any fear and the petitioner is on road. 5. At the outset, this Court may advert to the scope of interference by this Court in matters of police investigation which falls within the exclusive domain of the executive, as laid down in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 . The guiding principles and procedure to be followed in cases of failure by the police to registered an FIR or if proper investigation is not being conducted by the police after registering an FIR, have been enunciated in lucid detail in the said judgment, relevant extracts wherefrom may be reproduced fruitfully as under :- 'The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.' 6. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.' 6. In the above circumstances and having regard to the above exposition of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , as it has not been satisfactorily shown that the petitioner has taken appropriate steps for redressal of his grievances. 7. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.