Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Kaladevi vs State Of M.P on 17 November, 2014
( 1) Mcr.C No.2525/2013
Smt. Kala Devi
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
17/11/2014
Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, P.L for respondent / State.
Heard.
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for invoking inherent power of this Court seeking directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to lodge the report on the basis of complaint dated 15.2.2013 made by the petitioner.
It is submitted by the petitioner that despite informing the police authority vide complaint dated 15.2.2013, no FIR has been lodged till date.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & others reported in 2012 (5) MPHT 336 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following guidelines:
(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 ( 2) Mcr.C No.2525/2013 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 otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vii) 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.
© Medical negligence cases. (d) Corruption cases, (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/
laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for ( 3) Mcr.C No.2525/2013 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 land 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.
(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.
On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And others reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 907 in which it is held as under:
(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 -
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (25 of 1946). S.3 - CBI Investigation - Directions for should be issued only in some rare and exceptional case. Dead body of Army personnel found ( 4) Mcr.C No.2525/2013 on Railway Station. Finding by two Courts of Inquiry held by Army Authorities and GRP that it was a case of suicide. Mere allegation by father that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption cannot justify a CBI inquiry. Refusal by writ Court to direct CBI inquiry, proper.
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1947), S. 482 (para 32, 34) (B) Constitution of India, Art. 226
-Writ petition - Alternative remedy- petition against - Non registration of FIR by Police- Not to be entertained- Aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) , Cr.P.C by an application in writing or can file application before Magistrate under Section 156 (3).
Criminal P.C. (2 of 19947) Ss.
482, 154, 156.
It is alleged by the petitioner that on the intervening night of 6th and 7th February, 2013 at about 1 O'clock Monu @ Manoj and his wife Rajkumari were sleeping at their house. At that time someone knocked at the door, the petitioner woke up and she awoked her son Monuand her daughter-in-law. They opened the door. They saw Ramnesh Yadav @ Pappli, Anand Yadav, Dayanand Yadav and two other unknown persons armed ( 5) Mcr.C No.2525/2013 with weapons. They caught Monu and took him with them. When the petitioner and her daughter-in-law tried to stop them, they were thrown on the ground. The petitioner was also taken in the vehicle. Monu was beaten by the butts of the gun. While petitioner raised alarm, the accused persons thrown her near Nayapull. Petitioner saw a motorcycle coming towards that side. Then she become unconscious When she regained consciousness she came to her sister-in-law Smt. Kantabai. Petitioner sustained injuries and also sustained fractured in her leg. Despite application, no report has been lodged by the police.
It is further alleged that petitioner is being threatened by the persons, who abducted Monu.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and submitted that status report has been filed, in which it is stated that no definite opinion was given in postmortem report, and in the Medical report also no definite opinion was given. It is stated that if a person is thrown from a hight of 40 Ft., such injury may sustained, which might have caused the injuries sustained by deceased Monu. There was no water inside the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, death due to drowning or not it is not clear. Tibia bone was sent for ( 6) Mcr.C No.2525/2013 diatom examination. Report is yet to be received. Therefore, investigation is not complete.
In the light of Lalita Kumari (Supra) without commenting upon the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to take suitable action in accordance with law under Section 154 of Cr.P.C on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner dated 15.2.2013, if the same discloses commission of any cognizance offence.
Action in this regard be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with additional copy of complaint dated 15.2.2013. It need not be mentioned here that while complying with this order, direction givens in para 111 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) as quoted above in item No. (i) to (viii) be kept in mind.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-