WP-5741-2017 (DEVIDEEN DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 14-07-2017
Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri [ENTITY], learned Panel Lawyer for the State. The principal grievance of the petitioner by way of this petition is that the information provided to the police authorities informing about commission of cognizable offence had not matured into an FIR.
The issue raised in this petition is no more res-integra in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], which has been rendered after relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court decision in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India and Others ([SECTION]7) 6 SCC 171, relevant portion of the case is reproduced below :-
7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) and re-iterated in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [ENTITY] case (supra), [ENTITY] case (supra) and [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), we find that the view expressed in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [ENTITY] case (supra) and [ENTITY] case (supra). The view expressed in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) was re- iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. V. State of Bihar (AIR [SECTION]6 SC 3376). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under [SECTION] was directly in issue in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), [ENTITY] case (supra) and [ENTITY] case (supra). The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.[SECTION]3 with WP(C) 530/[SECTION]2 and WP(C) 221/[SECTION]2. Subsequently, these writ petitions were de-linked from the aforesaid writ petitions.
8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:
(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in [SECTION] of the Code are to be adopted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the concerned government to deal with the prayer. The concerned government would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
In view of above, the instant writ petition cannot be entertained and is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]
With the aforesaid liberty the writ petition stands disposed of.
([ENTITY] NAGU) JUDGE ss