Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties.
3. We have also perused the order passed by the High Court. It appears that at the stage of admission itself the High Court disposed of the two writ petitions filed by the respondents. It observed that it was not satisfied with the pace of the investigation and the manner in which the investigating officers concerned were dealing with the matter. The High Court, therefore, directed the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur to withdraw the investigation of the case concerning the affairs of the two societies pending with the police stations concerned and the allegations made in the two writ petitions be treated as FIR and the allegations may be investigated on that basis. It further directed that the investigation be entrusted to the Crime Branch, Nagpur, and that it should be done directly under the control and supervision of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Nagpur. The order directs that a senior police officer of IPS rank be entrusted with control and supervision of the investigation, considering the serious nature of the offences i.e sale of properties by misrepresentation, fraud and forgery.
4. These directions have been passed at the instance of a person who himself confessed to be a participant in the commission of the alleged offences.
5. The prayer in the writ petition, inter alia, was to direct the respondents i.e the police station officers of Sakkardara, Ajani and Hingna to take immediate cognizance of the complaints made by the petitioner from time to time and register the offences against Anandwardhan Trivedi and Manish Trivedi and book them according to law.
6. We fail to understand how the High Court could have interfered in writ jurisdiction in a case of this nature. We find from the material on record that several cases have been registered against the respondent himself. It appears that he has sent some complaints to the police station by post. There is also material to show that when the police required his presence in connection with the investigation of the case, he did not appear before the police. The police after investigating his complaint in one case has closed the case finding it to be a matter involving civil dispute.
7. We do not wish to make any comments about the investigation of the case or the result of the investigation. The law provides that if the police fails to investigate a case arising from a first information report lodged before it disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, it is open to the informant/complainant to move the Magistrate concerned for appropriate order under Section 156 CrPC, or may file a complaint and obtain appropriate orders from him for issuance of process against the accused for trial. If the grievance of the respondent was that the police was not properly investigating his case, or that the report made by the police was wrong or based on no investigation whatsoever, it was open to him to move the Magistrate concerned. Having failed to do so, he found the novel device of moving the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such a writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court when remedy is provided to the aggrieved party under the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the procedure established by law.
8. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions, but leave it open to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. He may file a fresh complaint/information before the police or he may choose to move the Magistrate for appropriate orders. The police as well as the Magistrate concerned will deal with such case/cases in accordance with law. Nothing said in this order shall be understood as expression of opinion on the merit of the case.
9. The appeals are accordingly allowed.