Karnataka High Court
M.S. Saini vs The Secretary, Department Of Home And ... on 14 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ553, ILR2004KAR143, 2004 CRI. L. J. 553, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3023, (2004) ILR (KANT) (1) 143, (2004) 2 RECCRIR 909, (2004) 1 KCCR 24, (2004) 2 ALLCRILR 151
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, Secretary, Department of Home, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City and his subordinates in not acting in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in not registering the information which had been furnished by the petitioner on 10th July, 2001 containing allegation against one H. Jayanna, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Yeshwanthpur Police Station indicating that he had indulged in the act of intimidation, harassment, fraudulent extortion, cheating, demanding bribe from the petitioner and even blackmailing which are all cognizable offences and notwithstanding the petitioner furnishing such information not only to the 5th respondent Inspector of Police but also to the superior officer including the Commissioner of police no action has been taken, that the information was not even registered as is required to be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and follow up action is not being taken by the respondent and as such approached this Court seeking for issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register the information furnished by the petitioner with the concerned police station and to take follow up action on the same. Petitioner had given representation to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City as per his complaint dated 10th July, 2001 (copy at Annexure E) and notwithstanding many reminders no action has been taken for registering the information as required under Section 154 of the Code and it is alleged it constitutes dereliction of duty on the part of the Station House Officer, Yeshwanthpur Police Station and also on the part of the superior Officer who had also been apprised of the incident.
2. A copy of the representation dated 10th July, 2001 given to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore (Annexure A) is produced. On a perusal of the same it is clear that it contains information about the commission of cognizable offences by the said sub-inspector Sri H. Jayanna.
3. This complaint has been followed by subsequent representation dated 2nd November, 2001 addressed to the Commissioner of police, Bangalore City and yet another complaint dated 9th April, 2002 addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Yeshwanthpur police station. Inspite of several requests no FIR has been registered in respect of the complaint given by the petitioner.
4. Statement of objection has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is inter alia asserted that the Writ Petition is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed in limine, that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief sought for in the petition and the petition itself is misconceived and is not maintainable, that the said sub-inspector H. Jayanna being not a party to the Writ Petition, it suffers from non joinder of necessary party, that the petition averments are denied, that the petitioner himself is an accused in Crime No. 258/2001 for offences attracting Sections 63 and 64 of the Copy Rights Act and Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade Marks Act, that a case has been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 482, 485, 486, 488, 489 and 420 of I.P.C., that the petitioner in fact had been produced before the l Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore City, that the police sub-Inspector had only visited the premises of the factory in connection with the investigation for the commission of such offences committed by the petitioner and that he was arrested and produced before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City etc.
5. It is also asserted that in respect of the representation/complaint given by the petitioner and in pursuance of the same that a suitable endorsement has been issued to the said police sub-Inspector, that departmental proceedings has been initiated against the said police sub- Inspector, that he was kept under suspension as per the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Bangalore as per order No. 160/DE/R-6/2001 dated 20.11.2001 and as such it is incorrect to say that no action has been taken in respect of the complaint/representation of the petitioner. It is asserted that the police officials are bound to safeguard the rights of the citizens and they are discharging their official duties in accordance with law and as there was no cognizable offences against the said sub-inspector no FIR has been registered but a departmental enquiry was ordered and the said departmental enquiry is pending before the authority concerned. On such ground petition is sought to be dismissed.
6. I have heard Sri S. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Puttasiddaiah, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
7. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though the information furnished by him with regard to incident involving H. Jayanna, Police Sub-Inspector of Police with regard to the commission of cognizable offences committed by him nevertheless police authorities have refused to register the complaint as required under Section 154 of the Code and have failed to take further action by holding proper investigation. It is for putting the investigating machinery in order the present Writ Petition is filed.
8. Statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents clearly indicates that there is some thing wrong. The respondents in fact have taken action to the extent of placing the said H. Jayanna, Police sub- Inspector under suspension and holding a departmental enquiry against him, is the admitted position. Registering FIR under Section 154 is not after holding an investigation into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained therein or about the information furnished therein. An FIR as contemplated under the Code has to be followed. After registering the FIR investigation has to be made and thereafter a report has to be submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate indicating that the person against whom allegations are made prima facie appears to have committed the offences and as such he should be charge sheeted and submit a charge sheet or the investigation report indicating that no such offence is committed and such report in that regard is to be submitted. That is the logical conclusion after registering an F.I.R.
9. It is not for the police authorities to refuse to register and F.I.R. by saying that the authorities have held and enquiry and that it has not revealed the commission of any cognizable offence by the concerned person. It is virtually putting the cart before the horse.
10. In this regard Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of MOHINDRO v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS., 2001 Crl. L.J. 2587 which reads as under:
"The grievance of the appellant is that though she has approached the authority for registering a case against the alleged accused person but the police never registered a case and never put the law in motion, and therefore, having failed in an attempt in the High Court to get a case registered she has approached this Court. Pursuant to the notice issued the respondents have entered appearance. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Punjab stated that there had been an enquiry, we fail to understand as to how there can be an equity without registering a criminal case. On the facts alleged, it transpires that the appellant approached the police for registering a case and get the allegation investigated into and yet for no reasons whatsoever the police failed to register the case. In the aforesaid premises, we allow this appeal and direct that a case be registered on the basis of the report to be lodged by the appellant at the Police station within a week from today and thereafter the matter will be duly investigated into and appropriate action be taken accordingly."
11. In the circumstances this Writ Petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent Commissioner of police to ensure that an FIR as furnished by the petitioner is registered with the jurisdictional police station and the Commissioner is further directed to appoint a Police Officer to investigate in respect of the information given by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Code and to take further action as per law.