@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent to forward his complaint dated 10.02.2011 forthwith to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam, so as to enable them to take swift action against the culprits/offenders.
2. Summation of Writ Facts:
(i)The Petitioner is an Ex-naval Officer, CPO (Electrical) and was re-employed in LIC of India during the year 1990. He had rendered meritorious service without any blemish whatsoever and in receipt of Medals from the President of India. At present, he is working in Assistant Cadre in the Respondent/Branch Office at Virugambakkam.
(ii)On 11.03.2009 at around 1.00 p.m., he found his lunch bag and helmet went missing from his two wheeler, which was parked in the Branch premises allotted exclusively to the LIC employees. While searching in and around the places, his lunch bag and helmet were found lying in the dustbin in a damaged and bad condition. He had lodged a oral and written complaint to the then Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent Branch, Virugambakkam on 12.3.2009 in order to take action on the culprits and to punish them in accordance with law which was duly acknowledged.
(iii)To his shock and surprise, the Respondent, instead of taking action against the culprits, take disciplinary action against him, by way of reduction of pay scales at one stage as if he violated Rule 50(2) of LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 assuming that as if he had lodged a private complaint before the local police station, Virugambakkam without informing the Senior Branch Manager.
(iv)Being aggrieved against the aforesaid act of the Respondent, he filed W.P. No. 24547 of 2009, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the Respondent and to quash the same.
(v)This Court on 09.04.2010 passed an order directing the Respondents to dispose of the Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority viz., Zonal Manager, South Zone, within a period of four weeks. The Appellate Authority, viz., Zonal Manager, South Zone, by virtue of Order dated 24.05.2010, set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and decided to conduct De novo Enquiry for the fresh cause of action. The Respondent conducted De novo Enquiry and communicated through an order dated 28.01.2011 stating that the charges stands dropped against the Petitioner without assigning any valid reasons to that effect.
(vi)Since the LIC employees were prevented to lodge any complaint Petition, Appeal to any outside authority not mentioned in LIC Rules, as per Rule 50(2) of LIC Staff Regulation, 1960 wherein it is enjoined as follows:
No appeal, petition or memorial shall be addressed by any employee to the Members of the Corporation personally, or to any outside authority or an authority not prescribed in these Regulations or in the Life Insurance Corporation Act.
and as such, he opted to prefer a complaint dated 10.02.2011 to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai '' 92, through proper channel (i.e.,) S. Jothirajan, Senior Branch Manager, LIC, Virugambakkam Branch, Chennai. Accordingly, he lodged his complaint to S. Jothirajan and the same was duly acknowledged by him.
(vii)He came to understand belatedly that his complaint was not received by the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam. He sent a communication to the Respondent dated 02.03.2011 requesting him to furnish the details pertaining to his complaint whether it was forwarded or withheld by the Corporation for which the Respondent had sent a letter dated 05.03.2011 stating that the complaint would be looked into and the matter would be investigated.
(viii)To his shock and surprise, the Respondent, instead of forwarding his complaint dated 10.02.2011 to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam so as to enable them to take swift action against the culprits/offenders, had chosen to protect them till date who were taking shelter under the blanket of the LIC of India even after receiving his legal notice dated 17.05.2011 and they were moving freely without any fear. Therefore, he had filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Respondent''s Counter Contents:
(i)It is clarified when the Petitioner had informed the Office of the Branch that his lunch bag and helmet were missing and somebody had put them in the dustbin near the corner of the parking lot. However, he had never preferred a complaint to the Branch Office in writing, instead he had directly lodged a complaint with the local police, a copy of which was forwarded to the Branch Office.
(ii)The Petitioner, while enquired about the veracity of the aforesaid complaint given to the Police, instead of giving a straightforward reply, had raised several uncalled for issues and allegations against co-employees of the Branch, which were not in good taste.
(iii)It is admitted only to the fact that the Appellate Authority had passed the order dated 24.05.2010 to conduct De novo Enquiry. Further to the aforesaid order, a De novo Enquiry was ordered on 18.06.2010 by the Senior Divisional Manager, Chennai Division I (Disciplinary Authority) to enquire into the charges vide charge sheet dated 18.04.2009 issued to the Petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, by his order dated 28.01.2011, dropped the charges against him. A copy of the complaint addressed to the local police station dated 10.02.2011 was sent to the Branch Office.
(iv)In response to the complaint of the Petitioner, the Branch Office of the Respondent, through letter dated 05.03.2011, responded stating that the complaint would be looked into and the matter would be investigated. The Senior Branch Manager conducted a thorough enquiry into the complaint of the Petitioner and finally concluded that employees mentioned in the Police complaint were not at all involved. The entire complaint lack bona fides and the same was without any basis and substance.
(v)The investigation by the Senior Branch Manager, CBO 21 revealed that no employee was involved in the complaint of the Petitioner. However, in the interest of the Institution, the Office felt that the complaint need not be forwarded to the local police as that would affect the smooth functioning of the Branch Office. Moreover, the Senior Divisional Manager was also informed in writing vide Report dated Nil about the conclusion of the enquiry at the Branch office on the complaint of the Petitioner. A covering letter dated 26.05.2011 was addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager enclosing copy of the report by the Branch Office.
(vi)The copies of the report of the Branch Office dated Nil along with covering letter addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager dated 26.05.2011, was forwarded to the Writ Petitioner through communication dated 06.11.2012. The said documents were received by the Writ Petitioner on 10.11.2012. In the communication addressed to the Writ Petitioner, it was mentioned that a discreet investigation was conducted and no employee was involved in the issue. Also, the employer is under no obligation mandated by any rules or regulations to forward such complaints to Police. It is always open to the Writ Petitioner to resort to any further legal recourse as available to him. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable.
Petitioner''s Submissions:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner lodged an oral and written complaint to the Respondent one Ganesh Babu, then Senior Branch Manager, Virugambakkam on 12.03.2012 in order to take action on the culprits [pertaining to the issue of his lunch bag and helmet were missing from his two wheeler on 11.03.2009 at around 1.00 p.m., which was parked in the Branch Office premises allotted exclusively to the LIC employees] and to punish them in accordance with law.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Petitioner opted to file a complaint dated 10.02.2011 to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai '' 92 through proper channel [i.e., S. Jothirajan, Senior Branch Manager, LIC, Virugambakkam Branch, Chennai] and accordingly, he lodged his complaint to him and the same was acknowledged by him. However, the Petitioner came to understand that his complaint was not received by the said Inspector of Police and as such, he sent a communication to the Respondent dated 02.03.2011 requesting him to provide details relating to his complaint [whether it was forwarded or withheld by the Corporation], for which, the Respondent wrote a letter dated 05.03.2011 stating that the complaint would be looked into and the matter would be investigated.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Respondent had not forwarded the Petitioner''s complaint dated 10.02.2011 to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam, the Petitioner was per forced to file the present Writ of Mandamus praying for an order to be passed by this Court in directing the Respondent to forward his aforesaid complaint immediately to the above said Inspector of Police for taking swift action against the culprits/offenders.
Contentions of the Respondent:
7. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/LIC submits that the Petitioner, based on misconception, had referred to the ambit of Rule 50(2) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 and the said Rule may not be pressed into service in the instant case.
8. Further, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that a copy of the complaint addressed to the local police station dated 10.02.2011 was sent to the Branch Office of the Respondent and the Branch Office, through letter dated 05.03.2011 informed that the complaint would be looked into and the matter would be investigated.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent conducted a thorough enquiry into the complaint lodged by the Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the employees mentioned in the Police complaint were not at all involved and as such, the entire complaint of the Petitioner lack bona fides. Added further, the office of the Respondent felt that the complaint of the Petitioner need not be forwarded to the local Police as that would affect the smooth functioning of the Branch Office, because of the reason that the Senior Manager''s investigation revealed that no employee was involved in the complaint lodged by the Petitioner.
10. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that in the communication addressed to the Petitioner, it was mentioned that a discreet investigation was conducted and no employee was involved in the issue. Moreover, the employer is under no obligation mandated by any rules or regulations to forward such complaints to the Police. That apart, it is always open to the Writ Petitioner to resort to any further legal recourse as available to him.
Discussions:
11. At this stage, this Court points out that in the complaint dated 12.03.2009 [addressed to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai '' 92], the Petitioner had, inter alia, stated that on 11.03.2009 at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning, he parked his two wheeler at the Scooter parking place and in the said two wheeler, he kept his midday food bag and helmet etc. and was discharging his duties. At around 1.00 p.m., when he went down stairs to take his lunch bag, he found the midday lunch bag and helmet kept in the Scooter were missing and he searched for the same here and there and further immediately called the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Branch and also the last grade servants and informed them and finally, it was found out the missing lunch bag and helmet in a corner of the dustbin. This fact was known to the Assistant Administrative Officer Smt.Savithri, last grade servants Vasudevan and Harikrishnan. In sum and substance, the Petitioner, in his complaint dated 12.03.2009, had only prayed for taking action against the wrong doers and award them proper punishment.
12. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner on earlier occasion filed W.P. No. 24547 of 2009 before this Court and this Court, on 09.04.2010, ultimately passed an order directing the Zonal Manager and Appellate Authority, South Zonal Office to dispose of the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner dated 25.11.2009 after affording reasonable opportunity to him and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
13. It is to be pointed out that the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent, in his communication dated 12.04.2011, addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India '' DO-1, LIC Buildings, Chennai [with reference to the complaint of the Petitioner addressed to the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam, Chennai '' 92], has stated the following:
This is further to your instructions; I have inquired the following employees individually regarding the issues raised by the complainant.
1. Sri.N.Ramakrishnan Dev. Officer, SR No. 545952
2. Smt.S.Vilasini Asst, SR No. 583224
3. Smt.S.Bhuvana Asst, SR No. 561739
The above employees informed that they have not done any thing in that regard and not even knowing the identity of the vehicle of the individual employee.
Regarding (1). Sri. K.Kadiresan, former SDM, (2). Sri.V.Murugaian, former Mgr P&IR, (3).Sri.K.Ganesh Babu, former SBM and (4).Smt.S.Savithri former AAO are presently working at different places and I am not complaint enough to enquire them.
In this connection, I have to inform that the parking place allotted by the building owner is meant for parking the vehicles and no security has been provided. Therefore, it is the personal responsibility of the individuals to keep their belongings at their own risk.
Therefore, based on my enquiry, I am of the opinion that our employees are not involved above said issue.
14. A perusal of the Legal Notice dated 17.05.2011 issued by the Petitioner, through his Advocate, addressed to S. Jothirajan, Senior Branch Manager (In-charge), LIC of India, Virugambakkam, Chennai indicates that the Petitioner had opted to prefer complaint to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai '' 92 through proper channel i.e., Senior Manager, LIC, Virugambakkam, Chennai '' 92 on 10.02.2011 and later on, the Petitioner came to understand that his complaint was not received by the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam and as such, he sent a communication dated 02.03.2011 to the Senior Branch Manager requesting him to furnish details pertaining to his complaint whether it was forwarded or withheld by the Corporation, for which, the Senior Branch Manager sent a letter dated 05.03.2011 stating that the complaint would be looked into and the matter would be investigated.
15. In short, the Legal Notice dated 17.05.2011 issued by the Petitioner''s Advocate calls upon the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent viz., S. Jothirajan to forward the Petitioner''s complaint either to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai '' 92 so as to enable them to take swift action or to return back to him with the observation that what they had done in the matter within 15 days on receipt of notice etc.
16. Added further, the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent, in his communication, dated 26.05.2011, addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Chennai has stated the following:
This is further to my enquiry and compliance dated 08.03.2011 regarding the complaint of Mr. Andithevar against officials and employees.
I have further enquired the daily wage substaffs Shri.Vasudevan and Shri.Harikrishnan about the matter. They have informed that they could only see the bag lying in the parking lot along with the waste. They also said that they have not seen the person who put the bag in the said place.
There is also possibility of an outsider entering the parking place.
Therefore, I once again believe that our employees would not have done the act mentioned in the complaint.
17. It comes to be known that the Manager (P & IR) of the Respondent Divisional Office, in Ref. No. 1/P&IR/DO 1 dated 06.11.2012 addressed to the Petitioner as stated the following:
Dear Sir,
Re: Your complaint dated 10.02.2011 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam against some officers and employees.
With reference to the above, we have to inform you that the then Senior Branch Manager Sri V.Jothirajan had conducted a discreet investigation on the matter of your complaint and had concluded that no employee or officer mentioned by you in your above referred complaint was involved in the issue.
18. It transpires that Regulation 42 of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960 speaks of ''Form and Contents of Appeal''. Regulation 43 refers to ''Submission of Appeals''. As a matter of fact, Regulation 44 deals with ''Withholding of Appeals''. Indeed, Regulation 46 is concerned with ''Consideration of Appeals''. Regulation 50 under the caption ''Canvassing non-official or outside Influence'' runs as follows:
50. (1) No employee shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service in the Corporation.
(2) No appeal, petition or memorial shall be addressed by any employee to the Members of the Corporation personally or to any outside authority or an authority not prescribed in these Regulations or in the Life Insurance Corporation Act.
19. In this connection, this Court very relevantly points out that the ''First Information Report'' is only to set the criminal law in motion. In fact, the FIR must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In reality, the FIR is the First Information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer in-charge of Police Station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Sections 169 or 170 Cr.P.C. as the case may be and forwarding of a Police Report u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.
20. It is to be noted that Police investigation can be commenced only if the First Information Report prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. An obligation to register a case is not to be confused with the remedy if the same is not registered. The answer to the question whether the registration of a criminal case u/s 154(1) Cr.P.C. Ipso Facto warrants the setting in motion of an investigation in Chapter XII Cr.P.C. is provided by Section 157(1) proviso and 157(2) Cr.P.C. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. enjoins a discretionary power on a Magistrate u/s 190 Cr.P.C. order investigation by a Police Officer.
21. At this stage, this Court worth recall and recollect the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anandwardhan and Another V. Pandurang and others, (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 195, wherein it is held as follows:
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 u/s 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.
22. Also, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
35.It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code.
36.Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, the informant''s remedy lies under Sections 190, 200, Cr.P.C., but a Writ Petition in such a case is not to be entertained..
23. Moreover, in the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shashikant V. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630, wherein it is held that ''Ordinarily a writ Court cannot direct the investigate agency to carry out investigation in a particular manner''.
24. It may not be out of place for this Court to point out the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR u/s 154, Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3), Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application u/s 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
13. The same view was taken by this Court in
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII, Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
17. In our opinion Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
24. In view of the above mentioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate u/s 156(3), Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
25. In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai and others V. State of Gujarat and others, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 576, at special page 580, in paragraph 6 & 7, it is held as follows:
6. It is well settled that any person may set the criminal law in motion subject of course to the statutory interdicts. When an offence is committed, a first information report can be lodged u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). A complaint petition may also be filed in terms of Section 200 thereof. However, in the event for some reasons or the other, the first information report is not recorded in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 156 of the Code, the Magistrate is empowered under sub-section (3) of Section 156 thereof to order an investigation into the allegations contained in the complaint petition. Thus, power to direct investigation may arise in two different situations '' (1)when a first information report is refused to be lodged; or (2) when the statutory power of investigation for some reason or the other is not conducted.
7. When an order is passed under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code, an investigation must be carried out. Only when the investigating officer arrives at a finding that the alleged offence has not been committed by the accused, he may submit a final form; on the other hand, upon investigation if it is found that a prima facie case has been made out, a charge-sheet must be filed.
26. Apart from the above, in the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.
27. In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
The expression ''taking cognizance of an offence'' by the Magistrate has not been defined in the Code. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sec. 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted, and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding u/s 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If instead of proceeding under Chapter IX he, has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police u/s 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence.
28. In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
The legal propositions that emerge in this regard are:
1. A Magistrate can order investigation under S. 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognisance under Sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14 he is not entitled in law to order any investigation under Sec. 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to Sec. 202 he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by S. 202 of the Code.
2. Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance, he can adopt any of the following alternatives:
(a) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of Section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses.
(b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself.
(c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police.
3. In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses or as a result of the investigation and the enquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint.
4. Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance under Sec. 156(3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straight way issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action u/s 190 of the Code.
29. Also, in the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
If an offence is disclosed, the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. But it cannot be said that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation.
30. It cannot be forgotten that a Writ of Mandamus is only granted to compel performance of duties of public nature. An existence of a legal right and obligation of a public authority to fulfil the same on the date of petition or the conditions precedent to pray for a Writ of Mandamus. Indeed, the Writ of Mandamus can be issued only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on his part to perform the duty. In fact, a Court of Law cannot direct the Respondent to do something which he has no legal duty to do so. Further, the object of Mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty on the part of some person or body who is entrusted by law with that duty, in a Court proceeding will not sit as a Court of Appeal to examine facts or to substitute its own wisdom. No wonder, the ''Writ of Mandamus'' is a discretionary remedy and one cannot claim as a matter of right. The relief of Mandamus would be refused by a Court, where it would be meaningless by means of long lapse of time.
Disposition:
31. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner, in para 3 of his affidavit in the Writ Petition, has stated that on searching in and around the place his lunch bag and helmet were found lying in the dustbin in a damage and to condition. The Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent conducted a thorough enquiry into the complaint of the Writ Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the employees mentioned in the police complaint were not at all involved. On a careful perusal of the contents of complaint dated 12.03.2009 of the Petitioner latently and patently indicates that the Petitioner has addressed the said complaint to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam and marked a copy of the complaint to the Branch Manager of the Respondent Office. In any event the Respondent has made a discreet enquiry and came to the resultant conclusion that no employee was involved in the issue. Also, it is the categorical stand of the Respondent that it is not under any obligation prescribed by any rule or regulations to forward the complaint of the Petitioner to the police. Further, it is emphatically averred in the Counter that the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent by a covering letter dated 26.05.2011 addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager of LIC enclosed a copy of the report of the Branch Office in regard to the conclusion of enquiry pertaining to the complaint of the Petitioner.
32. Be that as it may, in law, the Writ of Mandamus filed by the Petitioner seeking for a direction being issued by this Court in directing the Respondent to forward the Petitioner''s complaint dated 10.02.2011 forthwith to the Inspector of Police (Crime), Virugambakkam is not per se maintainable. The Petitioner cannot claim the discretionary relief of Writ of Mandamus as a matter of right. There is no statutory duty imposed upon the Respondent Office and it cannot be also said that there is a failure on the part of Respondent Office to perform that duty. As a matter of fact, the Respondent Office has enquired the complaint of the Petitioner dated 12.03.2009 and the investigation by the Senior Branch Manager of the Respondent Office revealed that no employee was involved. Therefore, it is open to the Petitioner to avail the remedy of approaching the competent authority under Criminal Procedure Code either u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. or to file an Application u/s 156(3) read with 190 Cr.P.C. before the competent Criminal Court, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails.
33. Looking at from any angle, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the competent authority either u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. or u/s 156(3) read with 190 Cr.P.C., in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, if he so desires/advised.
