Rajesh Kumar Murarka v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (Cr.) No.
of 201 Rajesh Kumar Murarka, son of Late Shri Nathmal Murarka, aged about 53 years, resident of near Railway Crossing, Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : the Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
3. Station House Officer, Through Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
4. Mukesh Murarka, son of Late Shri Nathmal Murarka, partnership- M/s. Nathmal Badrinarayan, Main Road, Korba, C/o. Murarka Petrol Pump, Power House Road, Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner:
Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State:Mr. Ramakant Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board /0 6 /201 Heard.
(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted a report in the Police Station, City Kotwali Korba on 28.04.2016 alleging commission of cognizable offence by respondent No. 4 but till date no action has been taken by the police authorities.
(2) The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and others1 has held as follows:- "120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we held: 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 inquriy, 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 inquriy is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(2014) 2 SCC 1
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 reason 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."
(3) 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/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Vacation Judge D/-