Dinesh Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR (C G) ? U Writ Petition (C) NOW of 2014 ,, // PETITIONERS :1.
Dinesh K€mar Singh, S/owRamlaI Sidar, aged about year's} Village Jamgahan, P.S.-Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodabazar - w , Bhatapara (CG '
$5 Kw Mw%0fY/mx '
W) /, @ ww/ Mw%0fY/mx 2.
Ghanshyam Sldar S/o Bamlal Sldar W) N.
aged about (y.ars Vlllage w '
~af"':\jgm\'\""'
Jamgahan, P.S.-Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar - 'l Bhatapara (C.G.) '
,m'
/ 3.
Geeta Ram/Premi S/o Mangaiu Ram Premi aged about 4O years Village Jamgahan PS Bhat§aon Tahsui i Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar -- Bhatapara (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :1.
State Chhattisgarh, Through:
Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.).
2.
Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3.
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4.
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5.
District Marketing Ofhcer, C.G.
Rajya Sahakari Vipdan Sangh Maryadit, Balodabazar, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)
6.
Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Manager, Center lncharge, Seva Sahakari Samiti, Pirda (Jamgahan), P.S.
Bhatgaon District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.) Station House ln-charge, P.S.
Bhatgaon, District BaiodabazaBhatapara (C.G.) Superintendent Police, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) WRITM PETITI0N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
/ / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.2570 of 2014 PETITIONERS Dinesh Kumar Singh and others
Versus
RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Present :- Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 5'" day of January, 201 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent-authorities investigate the matter;
register offence against culprits, who are directly or indirectly involved causing loss to the State exchequer and for misappropriation of public money.
petitioners have also prayed for providing security to the petitioners as well as their family members. One petitioner namely, Ghanshyam Sidar has lodged complaint before concerned police on 07.10.2014 t 07.11.2014 requesting for lodging of First Information Report (for short 'FIR') against the members/office bearers of the society who have misappropriated paddy have embezzled exchequer to the tune of Rs.3.00 crores.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court Lalita Kumari V.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and others', the concerned police is under obligation register FIR investigate matter.
Therefore, by not proceeding ahead with complaint, concerned police is acting in contravention of the direction issued by the Supreme Court.
in Lalita Kumari (supra) the Supreme Court has held thus:- "120.1.
registration FIR is mandatory under Section Code, if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2.
lf the information received does not disclose cognizable offence but indicates necessity for an inquiry, preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disciosed or not. 120.3.
If inquiry discloses commission cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.
lt must disclose reasons brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4.
police omcer cannot avoid his duty registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.
Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and (2014) 2 SCC I l
U) circumstances of each case. The category of cases which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimoniai disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7.
While ensuring protecting rights of the accused complainant, preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating cognizable offences, whether resulting registration FIR or leading an inquiry, must be mandatorily meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
The allegation pertains to misappropriation and embezzlement of exchequer tune Rs.3.00 crores which, prima facie, appears to be serious and cognizable.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned police to enquire/investigate the matter and if a cognizable offence is committed by any person, concerned police shall proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Sd/- Prashant Kumar Misa hr Judge