ANKUR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allegations are made that the respondent No. 5, a Police Officer, is demanding money from the shopkeepers and if such a demand is not fulfilled, he takes coercive steps against such shopkeepers. The petitioner is the brother of one of the shopkeeper and when the brother of the petitioner denied to fulfill the demand of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner was taken to the Police Station where he was beaten brutally. A complaint in writing in this respect is made, but no action is taken by the police, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It has become a common practice that if a complaint is made with respect to the allegations of improper act of Police officers, normally no action is taken by the higher authorities expeditiously. As a result, the complainants start running to this Court by of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for alleged violation of Fundamental Rights. However, it is not possible for this Court to convert itself into an investigating agency and to entertain such complaints. It is advisable that the higher authorities of the police should look into such complaints and to inquire into the merits of the same and to take action in accordance to law, if any fact is found prima facie proved.

(2.) The other aspect is that if a complaint is made or a representation is filed before the higher authorities with respect to any act done by the police authorities or any other authorities and no action is taken, the complainant has a right to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction by way of filing a private complaint under the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others, 2007 6 SCC 171, the Apex Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, if approached by a complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to any cognizable case, he is required to record the statement and exercise the powers available under Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate if, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate the offence under Chapter-XII of the Code and to submit a report to the Magistrate. In case it is found by the Magistrate that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a case, if the grievance is raised, a proper procedure is prescribed to investigate such grievance. Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, 2008 2 SCC 409.

(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others, 2008 3 SCC 542, in para 50 of the report has held thus: