Phool Singh Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 176 of 2018

1. Phool Singh Sahu S/o Shri Dhajaram Sahu, Aged About 72 Years

2. Smt. Prembai Sahu W/o Shri Fulsing Sahu, Aged About 70 Years both are R/o Village Tanaud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgaarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

3. The In - Charge Officer Police Station Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

4. Mela Ram Sahu, S/o Phool Singh Sahu, Aged About 50 Years (Son Of Petitioners)

5. Smt. Tulsi Bai W/o Mela Ram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years

6. Sita Ram Sahu, S/o Phool Singh Sahu, Aged About 47 Years

7. Smt. Lata Bai Sahu, W/o Sita Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years

8. Dilip Sahu, Aged About 26 Years Grandson of Petitioners, The respondent No.4 to 8 are R/o Village Tanaud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 26/03/2018

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are old aged

father and mother and they have been subjected to assault by respondents No.4 to 8, who are pressurizing the petitioners to sale a land, however, when the report was made no cognizance has been taken by the police authorities, therefore, he prays that respondents No. 2 to 3 may be directed to register the FIR against respondents No. 4 to 8.

3. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others {(2014) 2 SCC 1} has held as follows:- "120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a 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. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of 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 to ascertain whether the 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 circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a 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 to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."

4. Considering the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned police to investigate the matter in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) and submit the report before the competent criminal Court. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu