Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Sahebrao Deshmukh, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking a direction to register a crime against respondent nos. 5 to 15 based on his complaint dated 10-10-2018. The respondents included private individuals and police officers. The petitioner alleged that he was illegally detained and assaulted by the respondents. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by approaching the Magistrate. The court held that in the absence of a prima facie case, no direction could be issued to register an FIR. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Cognizable Offence - Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court considered whether a direction can be issued to register a crime based on a complaint that does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The petitioner alleged illegal detention and assault by police and private persons. The court held that the complaint lacked specific details and did not make out a cognizable offence, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that when an alternative remedy is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition seeking direction to register an FIR. The petitioner could approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can direct registration of a crime against police officers and private individuals based on a complaint alleging illegal detention and assault, when the police have not registered an FIR.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Law Points
- Registration of FIR is not mandatory if complaint does not disclose cognizable offence
- Alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC is available
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised when alternative remedy exists
- No direction can be given to register crime without prima facie material
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 41
Criminal Writ Petition No.1493 of 2018
T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane
M.R. Sonawane for petitioner; D.R. Kale, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 13 to 15; J.V. Deshpande & S.N. Dudhate for respondent Nos.5 to 12
Suresh s/o Sahebrao Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai; Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad; Police Inspector (Jivisha), Aurangabad; Police Inspector, Ajintha Police Station; Bhaskar s/o Sahebrao Deshmukh; Mahendra s/o Bhaskar Deshmukh; Latabai w/o Bhaskar Deshmukh; Rajendra s/o Gajanan Jadhav; Shakil Sandu Tadvi; Raghunath s/o Baburao Chavhan; Prabhakar s/o Baburao Chavhan; Dhanlal s/o Brirjilal Zalwar; Ganesh s/o Sonaji Biradar; Kiran D. Aher; Gajanan s/o Pralhadsingh Chavhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction to register a crime against police officers and private individuals for alleged illegal detention and assault.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought registration of crime against respondent Nos.5 to 15 based on his complaint dated 10-10-2018.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that his complaint to police did not result in registration of an FIR, and he sought court intervention to compel registration.
Issues
Whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR?
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC is available?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the police failed to register a crime despite his complaint alleging illegal detention and assault.
Respondents contended that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court should not direct registration of an FIR when the complaint does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, and the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC to approach the Magistrate.
Judgment Excerpts
By consent, heard both the sides, for final disposal.
The petition is filed for following reliefs:- (i) For registration of crime against respondent Nos.5 to 15 on the basis of complaint dated 10-10-2018 given to police by the petitioner;
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint on 10-10-2018 with the police, but no FIR was registered. He then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1493 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking a direction to register a crime. The petition was heard on 15th July 2019 and judgment pronounced on 31st July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 154, 156(3)
- Constitution of India: 226
