Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to various authorities including the State of Maharashtra, Union of India, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, SEBI, RBI, Commissioner of Police Mumbai, Enforcement Directorate, CBI, and Economic Offences Wing to register an FIR/ECIR or institute other proceedings for an independent, expeditious, effective and meaningful investigation into crimes allegedly committed by respondent nos. 11 to 25 and 28 to 46 under sections 406, 409, 420, 421, 120-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and other laws. The court, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice G.A. Ankhad, heard the matter. The court observed that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and that the allegations pertained to offences against others. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows any person to approach a Magistrate for a direction to the police to register an FIR. The court held that a writ petition for such a direction is not maintainable and dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The court did not go into the merits of the allegations.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Alternative Remedy - A writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to register FIR and investigate is not maintainable when the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC. The court held that the petitioner, who is a third party, cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for investigation of crimes allegedly committed against others. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC - The remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC is available to any person who can approach the Magistrate for direction to police to register FIR. The court held that the petitioner should avail of this remedy instead of directly approaching the High Court. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for a direction to register an FIR and investigate alleged offences when the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and has an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Law Points
- Maintainability of PIL for registration of FIR
- Locus standi of third party to seek investigation
- Alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC
- Scope of writ jurisdiction in criminal matters
