Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Kalaji Kanaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat & 6 on 30 June, 2016

Author: Sonia Gokani

Bench: Sonia Gokani

                  R/SCR.A/4270/2016                                              ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 4270 of 2016
         ========================================================
                       KALAJI KANAJI THAKOR....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT  &  6....Respondent(s)
         ========================================================
         Appearance:
         J K GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
          
                                      Date : 30/06/2016
          ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner before this Court is the owner of  ancestral agriculture land bearing Survey No.99/3  situated at Village Nikol. He is the co­sharer, a  detail complaint has been sent by the petitioner  to the Police Inspector, Nikol Police Station on  30.05.2016. According to him, no head is paid to  the same. He has urged that this certificate of  handwriting   experts   also   held   in   favour   of   the  petitioner.

2. The   petitioner   being   aggrieved   by   non­ registration   of   the   first   information   report   on  the   basis   of   the   complaint   given   in   writing   by  him   to   the   respondent   No.4,   herein   approached  Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/4270/2016 ORDER this   Hon'ble   Court,   who   seeking   relief   of  registration of FIR. 

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has  also sought to rely on the handwriting expert's  report   and   has   urged   that   the   concerned   Police  Inspector to take action.

4. Learned   APP   has   also   been   heard.   He   has   no  objection to this Court directing on the line of  dictum   given   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  LALITA   KUMARI   V.   STATE  OF   UTTAR   PRADESH   AND   OTHERS reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. 

5. Having considered the submissions and having also  examined the material on the record, the request  of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Let the  details be examined by the concerned Officer on  the   line   of   decision   of   Apex   Court   rendered   in  the   case   of  "LALITA   KUMARI   V.   STATE  OF   UTTAR   PRADESH AND OTHERS", reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.  It   would   be   beneficial   to   regurgitate   the  relevant   paragraph   of   the   said   decision,   which  reads as under :

Page 2 of 6

HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/4270/2016 ORDER "120.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion, we hold:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii)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.
(iv) 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.

(v) The   scope   of   preliminary   inquiry   is   not  to  verify   the   veracity   or  Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/4270/2016 ORDER otherwise   of   the   information  received   but   only   to   ascertain  whether   the   information   reveals  any cognizable offence.

(vi) 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.

(vii)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.





                                      Page 4 of 6

HC-NIC                             Page 4 of 6      Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016
                 R/SCR.A/4270/2016                                            ORDER



(viii) 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."

6. Bearing   in   mind   the   aforementioned   ratio   laid  down   by   the   Apex   Court,   the   respondent   No.4,  herein, shall look into the matter and lodge the  first   information   report,   if   any,   cognizable  offence   is   made   out;   if   not,   for   the   limited  purpose   of  knowing   as   to   whether   cognizable  offence is  revealed, a preliminary inquiry shall  be   conducted.   The   petitioner   shall   be  communicated   the   brief   reasons   if   eventually  also, the respondent No.4 choses not to lodge the  first information report. Such exercise shall be  completed by the respondent No.4 at the earliest,  but not later than ONE WEEK. The entire exercise  shall   be   done   at   the   earliest   without   further  loss of time. The petitioner shall be at liberty  to send all the documents including the report of  Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/4270/2016 ORDER the handwriting expert to the concerned authority  through registered A.D., within 3 days of receipt  of copy of this order. 

7. The   petition   stands  DISPOSED   OF  accordingly. 

Direct Service is permitted.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)  Tuvar Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sat Jul 02 03:18:38 IST 2016