Smt. Surekha Bhoi v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(CR.) No. 642 of 2019 Smt. Surekha Bhoi, Wd/o. Late Malikram Bhoi, Aged About 76 Years, R/o. Village Khamharpali, Patwari Halka No. 35, Circle - Khamharpali, Tahsil Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2.
Superintendent of Police Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
3.
Station House Officer, Police Station, Singhoda, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
4.
Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
5.
Uttar Kumar Bhoi, S/o. Late Malikram Bhoi, R/o. Village - Khamharpali, Patwari Halka No. 35, Circle - Khamharpali, Tahsil Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
-----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Roshan Dubey, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 09/08/2019 Heard.
1.
The instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of appropriate direction for lodging of FIR against the respondent No.5 on the basis of the complaint dated 20.05.2019.
2.
The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- (1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this Case.
(2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the Station House Officer, Singhoda to
Page No.2 register FIR against the respondent No.5 on the basis of complaint dated 20.05.2019 made by S.D.M., Saraipali (3) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.
3.
On perusal of copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner and other documents filed along with the petition, it appears that there is material in the complaint made by the petitioner in the case, which needs investigation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 held that:- "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
Page No.3 (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." 5.
Taking into consideration nature of the complaint and also considering the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the concerned police to register FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case (supra) and submit the report before the competent criminal Court. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram