Ram Pratap Gurjar v. Superintendent Of Police
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 536 of 2018 Ram Pratap Gurjar S/o Nabalik Prasad Gurjar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Aasandih, Post Janakpur, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Superintendent Of Police Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh
2. Station House Officer Police Station Raghunath Nagar, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh
4. Abhu Yadav Gram Panchayat, Aasandih, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh,
5. Amrit Lal S/o Pancham Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Aasandih, Distt. Balrampur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For State :
Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, PL S.B.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 13/09/2018 Heard.
1.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging inaction on petitioner's report submitted in the police station Raghunath Nagar on 30th of November, 2017. 2.
It is alleged that the report of the petitioner discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, the Station House Officer of Police Station Raghunath Nagar was obliged under the law to register an FIR against private respondent herein.
3.
The course of action is required to be taken when report submitted in the police station has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines as below : "120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
-2120.1. 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,
-3whether 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.
If the report discloses commission of cognizable offence, according to the aforesaid decision, the offence is required to be registered. However, if the Investigating Officer consider it necessary to hold a preliminary enquiry, the same is required to be done expeditiously. Finally, if upon Enquiry Officer does not find it to be a case of worth registration of FIR, the remedy which can be taken by the aggrieved informant is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors, 2008 (2) SCC 409. In the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), it was held :
"27.
As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 5.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha