RESEARCH NOTES

RESEARCH PROPOSITION

If the law of land is not followed by the Police, what remedy lies with the aggrieved
person?

The Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (AIR 2014 SC 187) (hereinafter referred to as the
“Lalita Kumari Judgment”)

PROVISIONS UNDER CRPC, 1973

The following provisions of CrPC deals with the procedure of providing information to the
police.

If the information is received under Section 154 of CrPC it is known as the First Information
Report (FIR). This Section further describes the procedure of recording information in
cognizable offences which ar as follows:

1. Section 154 (1) of the CrPC elucidates that if the information is provided verbally to
a police officer in charge of a police station, he is required to reduce it in writing.

2. Section 154 (3) of the CrPC provides that if the police officer in charge refuses to
record it, the aggrieved party may send the information to the Superintendent of
Police in writing/by post. If the concerned Superintendent of Police is satisfied with
the commission of the cognizable offence, he will either conduct investigation
himself or instruct a subordinate police officer to do the same.
Section 156 (3) gives power to the Magistrate to investigate any cognizable case under
Section 190 of the CrPC. Section 190 empowers any Magistrate of the first class and any
Magistrate of Second Class to take cognizance of any offence on receiving a complaint,
police report. Section 190 (c) further empowers Magistrate to take cognizance upon receiving
any information from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge of
commission of such offence.

CASE LAWS UNDER IN WHICH THE LALITA KUMARI JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
FOLLOWED:

1. Kamlakar R. Shenoy Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Bombay HC, 2019)

Facts:
The petitioner wished to file an FIR against corrupt developers and senior officers of
MHADA and Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB). As per DRCR-
33(7), Clause (4) of Appendix III, when an NOC is issued to a developer, he is
required to surrender surplus built-up area as per the percentage provided in MHADA
Act, 1976. 121 developers out of 241 did not surrender the same. The petitioner filed
a complaint with DCP of EOW seeking registration of an FIR against them.

Held:
  The High Court cited Lalita Kumari Judgment. [ Pg 10, Para 30].

 On the issue of whether the writ of mandamus can be issued to Police authorities,
it followed the All India Institute of Medical Science's case stating that the remedy
available is by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. [Para 31]

 “35. The aforestated rulings thus culled out the following two principles viz.
namely (i) the exhaustion of statutory remedies before issuing the writ is a rule of
policy convenience and discretion rather than rule of law, (ii) the decision of a
High Court to entertain the petition is pre-eminently one of discretion,
notwithstanding the existence of an alternate remedy and it is to be exercised
when there are good grounds therefor."
[Para 35]

 Hence, the court directed the DCP to register the FIR within 5 days. [Para 37]

2. Arun Punjaji Kadu & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, 2021)

Facts:
Dr. Sujay Vikhe, a serving MP from Ahmednagar Constituency procured 10,000
Remdesivir injections secretively, illegally transported them to Ahmednagar and
indulged himself in the distribution of those injections to the public as a political
stunt. Complaint for the same to register an FIR was made to the DSP.

Held:

 “ 17. … Considering the settled law on the scope of exercise of our writ
jurisdiction, in dealing with laxity on the part of the investigating officers
investigating into a complaint, we need to permit the police authorities to deal
with the complaint strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC as has
been held in Lalita Kumari (supra). If the informants are aggrieved by the manner
of investigation or if they have material available to form a view that the police
authorities are protecting Dr. Vikhe and are sheltering him by applying a gloss
over the acts which he has committed, the informants can always knock the doors
of the Court. But, presuming that the investigation agency is not going to
investigate properly and passing orders in our writ jurisdiction on apprehension
may not augur well in criminal jurisprudence and the justice dispensation
system.” [Pg 9, Para 17]

 “18. …As such, we find it pragmatic not to hastily come to a conclusion or

become judgmental in view of the time span in lodging of the first complaint and
the filing of this writ petition. Orders directing registration of an FIR are
normally passed after the Court is convinced that the legal remedies available to
the complainant have been exhausted and the grievance of the complainant is not
redressed. An order directing that the investigation be taken away from a
concerned police station so as to be handed over to any other I.O. or the State
C.I.D. or any other higher investigating agency, can be passed only after this
Court is convinced, pursuant to the investigation, that the I.O. is soft peddling on
the complaint and the investigation is merely a farce.”
[Pg 10, Para 18]
  “21. … The Police Station before whom such complaint would be filed, will follow
the procedure as enshrined under the CrPC and Lalita Kumari (supra) and if the
petitioners are aggrieved by the manner of investigation, they do have a right in
law to take recourse to available legal remedies.” [para 21]

3. Jwala Jambuvantrao Dhote Vs. The Commissioner of Police, C.P. Office, Sadar,
Nagpur and Ors. (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench, 2022)

Facts:
The question of Maintainability of writ petition to seek registration of FIR was raised.

Held:

 “18. The aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said judgments, sufficiently indicates that when there is grievance on the part of a
person that the police authorities have failed in their duty, remedy of approaching
a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or invoking Sections 190 and 200
thereof, is certainly available. As noted above, despite these remedies being
available, the writ Court can, in a given set of circumstances, entertain a writ
petition, when the facts brought to the notice of the Court are extraordinary in
nature. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu's
case (supra) and Aleque Padamsee's case (supra), that when the aggrieved person
can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., why should writ
petitions or petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. be entertained, is a
question that arises in these two petitions also. If the petitions of this nature are
entertained routinely by the writ Court, the apprehension expressed in the
aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that itwould lead to such
persons rushing to the High Courts by filing such petitions, would indeed come
true.”
The details of Sakiri Vasu case which has been referred by the Bombay HC in 3.
Jwala Jambuvantrao Dhote (supra) are as follows:

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. (SC, 2007)

Facts:
The Appellant’s son was a Major in the Indian Army. His dead body was found at
Mathura Railway Station. The G.R.P, Mathura after investigating the matter, in its
detailed report stated that the death occurred due to an accident/suicide. Other reports
stating the same were submitted by army officials of two different Courts of Inquiry.
Writ petition before HC was dismissed and hence the present appeal before the SC
praying in the writ that the matter to be executed by CBI.

 “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 writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are
of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should
ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his
 alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154 and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the
police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the
Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3).
Pg 5, Para 25]

 “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) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.” [Pg 6, Para
26 -27]

 “28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but
it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court
should not ordinarily interfere."
[Para 28]