TOOP SINGH NISHAD, S/O LATE SHRI TEEBHU RAM NISHAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents- authorities to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner and to register FIR against respondents No.06 to 08 herein in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite complaints/representations having being made by the petitioner to the respondents-authorities vide Annexure-P/16 and P/17 for registration of FIR/offence against respondents No.06 to 08 herein, the same has not been registered. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P.; 2014 2 SCC 1 learned counsel would submit that upon receipt of information by a police officer in- charge of a police station disclosing commission of cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register FIR under Sec. 154 of CrPC. Hence, present petition be allowed and appropriate direction be issued for registration of FIR by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(3.) Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that if petitioner is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR on the complaints made by him, he has alternative remedy to approach jurisdictional criminal court under Ss. 156(3) of CrPC or to file complaint under Sec. 200 of CrPC, but in the instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking mandamus directing the police to register FIR under Sec. 154 of CrPC, which is not maintainable and petitioner be relegated to avail remedy of approaching jurisdictional criminal court under Sec. 156(3) of CrPC or to prefer complaint under Sec. 200 CrPC.