Approaching HC Under Article 226 To Report Cognizable Offence Is Not Appropriate Remedy, Petitioner Must First Register FIR Or File Complaint: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report (FIR) needs to be registered, he can be the informant and get an FIR registered at the police station or file a complaint before a competent court.

The Court emphasized that there are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to address such situations, and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially is not the appropriate remedy.

Justice Ananda Sen, presiding over the case, stated, “If a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report has to be registered, he can be the informant and get a First Information Report registered in the Police Station or even can file a complaint before a competent Court. There are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which takes care of the situation. Approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, initially is not the appropriate remedy, which the petitioner should avail. The petitioner should first lodge a First Information Report or file a complaint.”

The petitioner, a member of the legislative assembly, alleged that a significant fraud had been committed and public money had been syphoned under the Ranchi Sewerage Drainage Project of 2005. Meinhardt Singapore Private Limited was appointed as a consultant for the project, and it was alleged that public money had been syphoned and misappropriated by several persons, necessitating the registration of an FIR and investigation. The petitioner claimed that no FIR had been lodged, compelling him to approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get the FIR registered.

The Court observed that the writ petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench had submitted that despite a preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance, the State was not granting sanction. The Division Bench, after hearing the petitioner, directed the State authority to decide on this matter as expeditiously as possible, considering the totality of the circumstances and the investigation carried out so far.

The Court opined, “for the same issue as being raised by the petitioner through this writ petition, there is an order of the Division Bench, directing the State to take a decision on the matter of granting sanction as early as possible. When there is already an order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, directing the State to take a decision, in my opinion, this writ petition filed before the Single Judge, more or less for the same relief, is unwarranted. The petitioner, if he has any grievance, should have approached the Division Bench.”

The Court added, “if any cognizable offence is committed, the same can be brought to the notice of the police, by lodging a First Information Report. Any person can lodge a First Information Report alleging commission of a cognizable offence, which the police is duty bound to register.”

Based on these considerations, the Court opined that there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner had filed any complaint or tried to get a First Information Report registered at any police station. Instead, the petitioner approached the Court directly by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 122

Click Here To Read Judgement