LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-4

SHARDA BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On June 09, 2014
Sharda Bai Appellant
V/S
The State of Madhya Pradesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents authorities to take legal action against respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 as per law and register offence against them under Sections 452, 354, 323, 294, 324, 34 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.

(2.) THE issue is to be looked into by the respondents -authorities and in case a complaint is made with respect to registration of offence aforesaid and no action is taken by the authorities, it is open to the complainant, petitioner in the present case, to lodge a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate. 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.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. [ : (2014) 2 SCC 1]. However, in the said case, the Apex Court has not said that it is mandatory for the Courts to issue direction in such cases where the remedy is available under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.