Madras High Court
V.Saroja vs The Commissioner Of Police on 20 January, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.34669 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2012
V.Saroja ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore,
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermanpet Range,
Chennai.
3. Mrs.Pattu Roja ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2012 and provide the Police Protection to thePetitioner and her premises being Saloon at No.137, TH Road, Kaladipet, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai-600 019.
For Petitioner : M/s.J.B.Solomon Peter
For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneetham
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3
O R D E R
The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent/the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet Range, Chennai, to consider her representation dated 18.12.2012 and to provide Police Protection to her and her premises viz., 'Saloon' at No.137, TH Road, Kaladipet, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai-600 019.
2.According to Petitioner, her deceased husband Vaidhyanathan [during his lifetime] running 'Saloon' at No.137, TH Road, Kaladipet, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai-600 019. Her family was dependent on the income from the said 'Saloon'. Her husband suffered from Paralysis disease on 15.10.2012 and he was taken for treatment at Government Stanley Hospital and recovered and conducted the business in the said shop by utilising the service of his assistants.
3.While that being so, on 20.11.2012, her husband (Vaidhyanathan) committed suicide in his shop and a case was registered by the Police. After the demise of her husband, she is running the shop by employing competent personnel. The Third Respondent is hampering the running of the shop. On 13.12.2012, herself and her son heard about the disturbance caused by the Landlady viz., Third Respondent and further, the Third Respondent/Landlady abused and threatened them and drove them away.
4. On 17.12.2012 at about 6.00 p.m., in the evening, the Third Respondent/Landlady along with her henchmen came to the shop and caused disturbance and started shouting in an abusive language and started threatening the workers. On hearing the same, the petitioner went along with her daughter and questioned about the antics of the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent/Landlady started threatening her and her family. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner apprehended that there was a threat to her life and liberty and her family. Therefore, she submitted a representation to the First Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai on 18.12.2012 praying for protection to her and her shop. It comes to be known that the First Respondent forwarded her representation, dated 18.12.2012, to the Second Respondent.
5.The main grievance of the Petitioner is that in spite of the representation submitted by her to the First Respondent on 18.12.2012 seeking Protection to her and her 'Saloon Shop', till date, no action was taken by the Second Respondent. As such, she was left with no other option except to file the instant Writ of Mandamus as stated supra.
6.It is to be borne in mind that the main object of the First Information Report from the angle of an informant, is to set the criminal law in motion. The object of the provisions [Sections 154 and 155 of Cr.P.C.] as to an information report (commonly called a first information report) is to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten/embellished, and the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired to do so, as per the decision, "EMPEROR V. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMED" A.I.R.(32) 1945 Privy Council at page 18.
7.It is to be noted that the receipt and recording of an information received by the police is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. Section 154 Cr.P.C. has a three-fold purpose:
1.It keeps the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police informed as per the decision in "KARUNAKARAN JABAMANI NADAR In Re., 1974 L.W.(Crl.) at page 190 Special Page at 196 [Division Bench].
2.It makes available to the judicial officers, the materials on which the investigation commenced, as per decision, PEARY MOHAN DAS V. D.WESTON AND OTHERS [VOL.16] CWN at Page 145 at Special Page 147.
3.It is a safeguard against embellishment or forgetfulness, as per decision "EMPEROR V. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMED", A.I.R.(32) 1945 Privy Council at page 18 at special page 20.
8. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "APREN JOSEPH ALIAS CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU & OTHERS V. THE STATE OF KERALA", A.I.R.1973 SC at Page 1, it is observed and held as follows:
"The Receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. Nor does the statute provide that such information report can only be made by an eye witness. First information report under Section 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in court. But this information when recorded is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. No duration of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of a crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation forthcoming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and circumstances of a given case."
9.Also, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, HASIB V. THE STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT at Page 283 and 284, it is observed and held as follows:
"The objection of first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the Criminal Law in motion. From the point of view of the investigating authorities it is to obtain information about the alleged Criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The report does not constitute substantive evidence though it is important as conveying the earliest information about the occurrence. It can be used only as a previous statement for the purpose contemplated under Section 157 or Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is for corroborating or contradicting its make and not of other witnesses."
10.In the decision, BACHANI DEVI V. STATE OF HARYANA, 1997 CR.LJ at Page 2632 [Punjab and Haryana], it is held that "Where complaint is made to the police officer, which discloses the commission of an offence, the police officer is bound to register it as First Information Report and that he cannot refuse to register it, because the police officials have conducted the preliminary enquiry".
11.It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's Representation/complaint dated 18.12.2012 addressed to the First Respondent/the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, was forwarded to the Second Respondent/The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet Range, Chennai, in Reference C.No.17008/COP/Visitors/2012. Further, the Petitioner was informed to contact the Second Respondent/the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Office Telephone No.2345480.
12.On going through the contents of the representation dated 18.12.2012 of the Petitioner addressed to the First Respondent [forwarded the same to the Second Respondent], it transpires that there appears to be some dispute [in regard to the vacating of the shop/saloon, now run by the Petitioner] between the Petitioner and the Third Respondent/Landlady.
13.That apart, the contents of the Representation/complaint of the Petitioner dated 18.12.2012, latently and patently indicates that the Third Respondent/Landlady had threatened the Petitioner with a murder intimidation viz., the petitioner and her daughter.
14.It cannot be gainsaid that when a complaint/representation is made by an aggrieved /affected person to the concerned Competent Authority, under the ingredients of Criminal Procedure Code, it is the duty of the Police Officer to enquire into the complaint and if found fit, to register the same. If any cognizance of offence is made out, without the intervention of the Court of Law, the Police Officer is bound to register the Criminal Case in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.
15.As far as the present case is concerned, on going through the tenor and contents of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2012 to the First Respondent/The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, [forwarded to the Second Respondent/The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermanpet Range, Chennai], this Court is of the considered view that the Second Respondent has to dispose of the said representation/complaint of the Petitioner, after making necessary due enquiries with the concerned and if need be, to proceed further in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the Second Respondent, on the conclusion of the enquiry on the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.12.2012, comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Petitioner and her family requires any police protection, then the Second Respondent after obtaining necessary petition/representation from the Petitioner, has to provide Police Protection to the Petitioner and her family (as the second respondent deems fit and proper) based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, which floats on the surface.
16.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
20.01.2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kal
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore,
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermanpet Range,
Chennai.
M.VENUGOPAL, J
kal
W.P.No.34669 of 2012 &
M.P.No.1 of 2012
20.01.2014