1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2780 OF 2009 Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Mahesh Kadam for the petitioner. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Dr.Poornima Advani, Mr.Omprakash Jha, Mr.Himanshu Kode i/b M/s.Law Point for respondent nos.4 and 5. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. Heard Mr.Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) in this petition read as under: “(a) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the Respondents, ordering and directing them to file an `F.I.R.’ against the abovenamed criminal minded persons – Mr.Jayesh Sangoi (the Chartered Accountant of the Petitioner’s abovenamed Deceased brother), Mr.Ganesh Bhagwan Kamble, Mr.Raju N.Shah & LIC Dombivli Branch Manager Mr.A.C.Nagpure & other their unknown accomplices for committing the aforesaid criminal offence of `Forgery & Cheating’. (b) to further direct and order the concerned `Investigating Authority’, to intimate the progress in the said criminal case from time to time, to this Honourable Court.” S 2 3. It appears that the petitioner issued legal notice/complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Thane and Senior Inspector of Police, Rambaug police station, Dombivli through his advocate Mr.Sushan Kunjuraman and Mahesh Kadam. He states that based on the said notice, the police station concerned was required to register the FIR and undertake the investigation against Shri Jayesh Sangoi, Chartered Accountant, Shri Ganesh Bhagwan Kamble, Shri Raju N. Shah and Shri A.C.Nagpure, Branch Manager, LIC, Dombivli branch. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had personally approached the police station and lodged complaint in that regard making out the offence against any individual. If such complaint is lodged and it is not registered by the police station concerned, he has further remedy under section 154 read with section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On failure to register the FIR even after approaching the Deputy Commissioner of Police, he still has remedy to approach the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate by filing a private complaint. Mrs.Shinde, learned A.P.P. has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 25 to 27 on the said decision: “.... .... .... 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a 3 writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practise and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3). 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies ? 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practise of filing a writ petition or petition under section 482 CrPC 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. 4 For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under section 482 CrPC.” 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate. (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)