Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Deepali Kukreja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2016
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA
W.P.No.338/2016
Ms. Nikita Kukreja
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
W.P.No.591/2016
Ms. Deepali Kukreja
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
O R D E R
(Delivered on this 29th March, 2016) Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in above cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of W.P.No.338/2016 are narrated as under:-
2. The petitioner before this Court who has filed a civil suit in respect of some property situated in the township of Indore is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR against respondent Nos. 6 to 16.
3. The petitioner's contention is that she is having a share in the Hindu Undivided Family Property and she is also having a share in respect of her father's property and some forged will as well as relinquishment deed has been prepared by respondents.
4. The petitioner further stated that she has lodged a -2- complaint with the police, however, First Information Report has not been registered. Heavy reliance has been placed by the judgment delivered in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. State of UP reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 336 and the contention of the learned Counsel is that FIR should have been registered by the police in the matter.
5. A reply has been filed by the State of M.P and it has been stated that the respondents have conducted a preliminary enquiry in the matter and they have arrived at a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as it is purely a civil dispute between the parties and therefore, no FIR has been registered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that FIR has to be registered at the first instance and thereafter, the respondents are required to take appropriate action, keeping in view the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP. The conclusions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:-
Conclusion / Directions:
111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:-----
(I) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 -3- 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 indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a Priliminary 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 priliminary 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.
-4-(vi) 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.
The aforesaid conclusion makes it very clear that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicate the necessity of an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
In the present case, a preliminary enquiry has been conducted in the matter and the police authorities have arrived at a conclusion that it is purely a civil dispute and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the police authorities have followed the directions / conclusions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. Not only this, a civil suit is very much pending between the parties and an application was also preferred under Section 93 of Cr.P.C for search and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Criminal Revision is pending i.e., Criminal Revision No. 1515/2015 before this Court.-5-
This Court is of the considered opinion that the police authorities were justified in conducting a preliminary enquiry in the matter and have rightly arrived at a conclusion that is is purely a civil dispute and a civil litigation is pending between the authorities.
No case for interference is made out in the matter.
The admission is declined.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. Sharma) Judge karuna