A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey recently noted that a person must make a separate and independent application under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C before the Superintendent of Police if they are aggrieved with SHO’s failure to record an FIR.
Brief Facts:
This writ petition was filed by 12 people in total including the principal and some teachers/Lab assistants working in the same school. It challenged the action of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Drug for invoking their power and jurisdiction u/s 156(3) of CrPc and accordingly registering an FIR against them under section 23 (1) and (2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act.
Initially, a complaint was received by the petitioner against the father of respondent no. 3 Dr. Ramesh Prasad Dwivedi who is also a teacher and was alleged to award corporal punishment to the students whom he detained. This fact was proved and in the interest of the students, the matter was referred to the Police station where the father of respondent 3 was charge-sheeted for offences under different provisions of IPC as well as POCSO. He later moved to the police and then the court u/s 156 (3) alleging that the petitioners had subjected the students (victim) to videography and disclosed their identity which is against Sections 23 (1) & (2) of the POCSO Act as well as the Section 67 of the IT Act. As per the Court’s order, the FIR was registered. Then against this order, the current petition was passed alleging that the impugned order was made without ensuring compliance with the provisions under sections 154 (1) and (3) of the CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted the facts of the case and referred to the Supreme Court’s Cases Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others and Priyanka Srivastava and anr. v. State of UP where it was noted that as per Section 156(3) the power requires application of judicial mind and under section 154 (1) and Section 153(3) of the CrPC there has to be prior application.
Further, the case of Babu Venkatesh and others v. State of Karnataka and another was also referred, where it was noted that prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, there have to be applications under sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.
Further, the court noted that the above-mentioned judgments held that applications under Section 154(1) & (3) are required to be made separately and in the application both aspects should be clearly spelt out, the necessary documents for the same shall be filled as well.
In accordance with the above-mentioned findings the court made and the facts of the case, the court observed that the application u/s 154 (1) of the CrPC endorsed to the Office of the Superintendent of Police on 4/12/2016, which cannot be deemed to be insufficient compliance with Section 154(3) of the CrPC, two days after making the application.
Decision of the Court:
It was held by the Hon’ble Court that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge where the powers under section 156(3) of the CrPC were invoked was without jurisdiction and without the authority of law and therefore the court directed to quash the FIR.
Case Title: Prashant Vashishta and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Coram: Honourable Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Honourable Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Case No.: Writ Petition (Cr.) No.177 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava (Senior Advocate); Mr. Sourabh Sahu (Advocate)
Advocate for the Respondent: For Respondents No 1 and 2/ State - Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government Advocate; For Respondent No.3 - Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
Read Judgment ;
0 Comments