TAUSEEF AHMAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction that despite his report for registration of offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 469 , 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC against respondents No.6 to 8, respondents No.1 to 3 have not registered any offence against the said persons, whereas they ought to have registered offence against the said private respondents, as the complaint filed by him discloses the commission of aforesaid offences.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mohaliya, has lodged a report against respondents No.6 to 8 as they have obtained employment by forged certificates and thus, have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 469 , 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, but no action has been taken and the complaint filed by him clearly and prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, as per the decision laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.,(2014) 2 SCC 1 , it was imperative for respondents No.1 to 3 to register FIR, but, as they have declined, appropriate writ or direction be issued for registration of FIR.

(3.) The State counsel would submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the police authorities in not taking cognizance of the alleged offence, he has remedy to submit application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate or to file complaint before the jurisdictional criminal Court under Section 200 of the CrPC, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. She would further submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition and on the basis of that, no direction can be given for registration of FIR against the private respondents.