Delhi District Court
Girdhari Lal Tiwari vs . Pawan Bansal on 26 November, 2015
Girdhari Lal Tiwari Vs. Pawan Bansal
CC No. 126/1/15
PS: Lahori Gate
U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C
26/11 / 2015
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
1.Arguments were heard on on the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.
P.C. Record perused.
2. Briefly stated that the complainant is the owner of property bearing no. 420, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk,having purchased the same from its previous owner M/s Tara Trading Company through its proprietor Sh. Sushil Kumar Goyal vide registered sale deed. At the time of purchase of sale property it was informed by the owner that the same is fully occupied by the tenants. One such tenant Sh. Om Prakash father of the proposed accused no. 1 and 2 was in occupation of part of second floor of aforesaid property. After death of Sh. Om Prakash proposed accused no. 1 and 2 along with mother became tenant vide inheritance. After the purchase of said property complainant got the copy of bill for the month of June, 2015 issued in the name of proposed accused no. 1 showing energisation date as 30.04.2014 for the said property. Later on it was revealed that proposed accused no. 1 had obtained energisation in his own name on the basis of one GPA issued in favour of proposed accused no. 1 by some Jamuna Devi wife of Kishan Lal showing to be the owner in physical possession CC No. 126/1/15 Girdari Lal Tiwari V. Pawan Bansal page 1 of 5 of said property. It is alleged that said GPA is a forged, fabricated and unregistered instrument. Despite sincere efforts complainant could not obtained certified copy of said GPA from accused no. 3. It is also alleged that said Jamuna Devi is a fictitious person. It is also alleged that on further inquiry from son of one Murari Lal Gupta, it has been revealed that his signatures are forged on GPA purportedly executed by aforesaid Muraru Lal Gupta in favour of Jamuna Devi. It is alleged that said GPA was created by proposed accused no. 1 to get the electricity connection in his own name and proposed accused no. 3 energised the premises in his name without any survey and inspection. It is also alleged that accused no. 1 and 2 in collusion with each other have created fake documents in order to grab the property of complainant and proposed accused no. 3 energised the premises in question on the basis of said forged and fabricated documents.
3. The counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that despite cognizable offence being clearly disclosed, the police has failed to discharged its statutory obligation by not registering the FIR on the complaint.
4. The Ld. Counsel also submits that forged documents in question and relevant papers prepared by the proposed accused persons in this regard can only be obtained / recovered by the police. The Ld. Counsel thus submits that the complaint in question clearly discloses the commission of the offences contemplated U/s 420/441/463/464/468/ CC No. 126/1/15 Girdari Lal Tiwari V. Pawan Bansal page 2 of 5 471 IPC. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that police officials wants to shirk their responsibility of registering the FIR by saying that it does not fall within their jurisdiction as documents were used in the office of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. which falls within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali despite the fact that property regarding which fake documents were prepared falls within the jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate.
5. My attention has also been drawn to the various judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (2) JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the FIR.
6. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also gone through the ATR. From the perusal of the complaint, it is clear that there are categorical allegations of forgery committed by accused persons pertaining to property in question. From the perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, it is revealed that matter has not been investigated properly by the police officials on the pretext of lack of jurisdiction. Obviously, the veracity and the genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint can only be verified after proper investigation and at this stage, it would not be proper to comment upon the merits of the allegations and the averments made in the CC No. 126/1/15 Girdari Lal Tiwari V. Pawan Bansal page 3 of 5 complaint. In Ramesh Kumari vs. State, 2006 Cri LJ 1622, it was held that -
"Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case and that can only be considered after registration of the case. The mandate of Section 154 of the Code is that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible."
7. It is also a settled proposition of law that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details of the offence reported. The provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 impose an absolute obligation and duty on the officer in-charge of a police station to record information in the FIR Register whenever the information so received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Meaning thereby that the officer in-charge of a police station has no option or discretion to not to register an FIR in such circumstances otherwise, it would defeat the Legislative intent behind the spirit of Section 154 of Cr. PC.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the complaint in question discloses the commission of various CC No. 126/1/15 Girdari Lal Tiwari V. Pawan Bansal page 4 of 5 cognizable offences and the allegations, if taken on face value, are also of serious nature, which may require sustained interrogation / investigation and also possibly some scientific investigation to bring out the truth on record. All the evidence are not within the reach of complainant and further investigation is required.
9. Hence, the present application U/s 156 (3) Cr. PC is allowed and the SHO, PS: Lahori Gate is directed to register an FIR. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS: Lahori Gate to register an FIR in the present case. Copy of the FIR so registered be also supplied to the complainant within next 3 days.
10.List for Status Report on 08.12.2015.
Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court on 26.11.2015 (Shilpi Jain) MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi 26.11.2015 CC No. 126/1/15 Girdari Lal Tiwari V. Pawan Bansal page 5 of 5