Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kant Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2018
1 WP-24363-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-24363-2018
(RAVI KANT MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Gwalior, Dated : 23-10-2018
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Present petition u/A 226/227 of the Constitution assails Annexure P/1 by which SDO/ Licensing Authority, Lahar has directed the Junior Civil Supply Officer, Lahar to register an FIR inter alia against the petitioner who happens to be a salesman of a fair price shop run by Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Lahar.
Learned counsel referring to the clause 13, 16(2) of PDS Control Order, 2015 submits that unless and until descripency noticed in the shape of essential commodities in fair price shop varies more than 10% in the allocated stock, no criminal proceeding can be initiated. Relevant clause is reproduced for ready reference and convenience:-
^^13- izfrLFkkiu@O;[email protected] dk jksdk tkuk- & ¼1½ izfrLFkkiu@O;[email protected] dk jksdk tkus ds mn~ns'; ls] vkacfVrh laLFkk dks ,sls HkkSfrd vFkok bysDVkWfud midj.kksa dh LFkkiuk ,oa mudk fu;fer la/kkj.k djus gksxk tSlk fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij fofufnZ"V fd;k tk,A ¼2½ dksbZ Hkh O;fDr yf{;r lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kky ds v/khu forj.k gksus okys [kk|kUu ,oa vU; vko';d lkexzh ds ifjogu] Hk.Mkj.k ;k forj.k ds nkSjku izfrLFkkiu@O;[email protected] ugha djsxkA 16 ¼2 ½ fdlh O;fDr ds }kjk ekfld vkcaVu dh 10 izfr'kr ls vf/kd ek=k ds laca/k esa [k.M 13 ds v/khu mYya?ku vFkok blh [k.M ds v/khu mYya?ku dh iqujko`fRr dh n'kk esa mlds fo:} vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1995 ¼1955 dk 10½ dh /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh vfuok;Z :i ls dh tk,xhA The law in regard to duty of the police to register an FIR u/S 154 of Cr.P.C. as regards cognizable offence has been well defined by the constituting Bench of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Relevant portion of which is
2 WP-24363-2018 reproduced below:-
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 3 WP-24363-2018
(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. It is needless to emphasis that it is for the police authority after receiving information as regards cognizable offence to ascertain as to whether the inquiry is to be conducted to the limited extent of ascertaining as to whether any cognizable offence is reported to be committed or not and not for the Junior Civil Supply Officer whose duty is merely to intimate the police about the alleged cognizable offence.
This Court observed that the police authority has limited power to conduct inquiry as permitted by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) merely to ascertain as to whether the information provided by the Junior Civil Supply Officer discloses commission of cognizable offence or not.
With the abovesaid observation, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the matter and dispose of this petition without commenting anything on merits.
4 WP-24363-2018 (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2018.10.26 05:33:37 -07'00'