@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.@mdashThis Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the police in registering a F.I.R. on the
report given by the petitioner on 16.11.2013, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home.
2. The petitioner averred that he joined as a shareholder in Delta Cabs Company, by depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- vide State Bank of India cheque
No. 247491 towards his share capital, that respondents 1 and 2 are the partners of the said Delta Cabs Company and they have entered into an
agreement with the petitioner on 06.05.2012. As respondents 1 and 2 allegedly absconded with the company funds and are not paying interest on
the petitioner''s capital amount or profit in the business, the petitioner has lodged a report on 11.11.2013 and also on 16.11.2013 against
respondents 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 406 and 409 I.P.C. As F.I.R. has not been registered even after expiry of more
than one month, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
3. This Court has ordered notice to the official respondents through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The case underwent two
adjournments. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that respondent No. 6 has
registered the F.I.R. on 13.12.2013 i.e., after the case was last adjourned on 11.12.2013.
4. To the Court''s query made during the hearing on 18.12.2013, on the inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R., the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, based on the written instructions, submitted that the reason for the delay in respondent No. 6 registering the F.I.R. is that he
has conducted preliminary enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner in his report. Indeed, this procedure
adopted by respondent No. 6 is not only contrary to the procedure laid down u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ""the
Code"") and also by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The case was therefore adjourned for filing counter-affidavit by
respondent No. 6.
5. Respondent No. 6 has accordingly filed a counter affidavit on 19.12.2013 wherein he has inter alia stated as under:
It is respectfully submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner herein has sent a complaint dated 16.11.2013 to the Station House Officer,
Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad through post stating that Mr. Sajid Hussain and Mr. Ahmed Hussain who are the partners of DELTA
CABS Pvt. Ltd., are absconding with company funds and not paying the interest of the capital amount and profit of the business as per the terms
and conditions of the agreement dated 2.6.2012.
It is respectfully submitted that although sincere efforts were being made to trace out the original complaint dated 16.11.2013 sent by the petitioner
herein by post, the same could not be traced and hence this respondent did not initiate any action upon it immediately, for which I sincerely tender
my unconditional apology to this Hon''ble Court.
6. The petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he has pleaded that he has sent the report to respondent No. 6 on 11.11.2013 and 16.11.2013 by Speed
Post and that after seeing the counter affidavit, the petitioner''s counsel submitted a representation to the Chief Post Master, General Post Office,
Hyderabad, on 19.12.2013 for furnishing delivery particulars of the Speed Post and that the information furnished by the Chief Post Master,
General Post Office, Hyderabad, showed that the postal cover was delivered to the address of respondent No. 6 on 12.11.2013. The petitioner
filed a copy of the said communication issued by the office of the Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Hyderabad on 21.12.2013. From the
abovementioned letter addressed by the Chief Post Master, it is established beyond any cavil of doubt that Narayanaguda Police Station, of which
respondent No. 6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, has received the petitioner''s first report dated 11.11.2013 on 12.11.2013 itself.
7. As noted by this Court, on 18.12.2013, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has reported to the Court on instructions that the reason for
the delay in registering the F.I.R. by respondent No. 6 was the holding of preliminary enquiry. When this Court has expressed its strong views on
the said procedure stated to have been followed by respondent No. 6 contrary to the well settled legal position, respondent No. 4 has changed the
stand in the counter affidavit by vaguely pleading that the report stated to have been sent by the petitioner was misplaced. However, unwittingly,
respondent No. 6 has admitted in paragraph No. 3 that the petitioner has sent a complaint dated 16.11.2013. From these severe contradictions in
the stand of respondent No. 6, it is evident that he is trying to cover up his conduct of keeping the report pending without registering the crime
though its contents disclosed commission of cognizable offence. From the letter addressed by the office of the Chief Post Master, General Post
Office, Hyderabad, to the Counsel for the petitioner, referred to above, I have no reason to doubt that respondent No. 6 has received the report
as far back as 12.11.2013.
8. u/s 154(1) of the Code, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police
station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in
writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept
by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Under sub-section (2), a copy of the information as recorded
under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
9. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that it is the duty and obligation of the
officer-in-charge of a police station to register the F.I.R., if the contents of the information reveal commission of a cognizable offence. It is further
held that it is not part of the duty of to the police to hold an enquiry, preliminary or otherwise, in order to ascertain the veracity of the truth or
otherwise of the contents of the information. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment, at paras 32 and 33, hereunder:
....An overall reading of the codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must
be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a
cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police
officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such
information.
10. Dealing with a similar situation, in Sammeta Lakshman Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 93 (AP), while repelling the
plea advanced on behalf of the State that the Police cannot straightaway register an FIR without making a preliminary enquiry into the truth or
otherwise of the allegations, I made a thorough analysis of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. with reference to the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (supra) and held as under:
From the discussion undertaken above, the inescapable conclusions that emerge are that Section 154(1) mandates the police officer in-charge of a
police station to register FIR, if he receives information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. He is not vested with any discretion whether
to register or not to register a case. Prior enquiry for registration of FIR is a concept alien to the procedure adumbrated under the Code. The
police officer cannot hold such an enquiry to ascertain the truth, credibility or otherwise of the allegations contained in the information. After
registering the case, the police officer is bound to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 157. As prescribed in the Manual, refusal to register a case
pertaining to commission of a cognizable offence constitutes an offence u/s 217 IPC (Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save
person from punishment or property from forfeiture).
... It requires no reiteration that in a society wedded to the constitutionalism and democratic principles of governance, the legitimate grievances of a
common man shall not be allowed to remain a cry in the wilderness. While the executive does not need to be reminded of their basic duties, even
when it is done so by the Constitutional Courts when situations impelled them, the former does not appear to be taking the wake up calls, leading
to a situation where they are repeating the same illegalities again and again. A trend of late is clearly noticeable that the precedential value of the
Courts'' verdicts rendered in public law field are treated as confined to the cases in particular in which they are given. Are observations made and
findings rendered while disposing of the cases involving issues of general public importance intended to be mere incantations? Certainly not. The
higher administrative echelons need to show far greater degree of sensitivity to the views of the Constitutional Courts to prevent repetition of
illegalities. They would also do well to realize that their duty does not end with issuing executive instructions or administrative circulars, but extends
to ensuring their implementation in letter and spirit.
Whatever Section 154 of the Code envisages is reflected in the Manual referred to above. What troubles the mind of this Court is when the
position is so clearly stated in the Manual, where is the room for the police personnel at the ground level to continue to defy the law; that how the
superior officers are condoning the faults committed and repeated by their subordinates time and again? Are the higher officials yielding to the
temptation of protecting their erring subordinates instead of showing absolute loyalty to the Constitution, the suprema LEX and the Laws operating
under its fold? Did no unit head ever find one instance of the Station House Officer failing to register a case and, if so, whether any Station House
Officer was prosecuted for the offence u/s 217 IPC?
(Emphasis added)
11. Very recently, the Apex Court, in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh1, once again reiterated the legal position.
12. While dealing with a case similar to the one on hand, in T.V.G. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad2, I have held as under:
As recent as 12-11-2013, the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari (1 supra) has reiterated the legal position in no uncertain terms and gave the following
directions:
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
enquiry 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 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.
(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
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for 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 and in any case
is 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.
(Emphasis added)
I am, indeed, unable to comprehend as to why the Police in the State have been turning a blind eye to the above well settled legal position and
forcing the innocent citizens to resort to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
experience of this Court reveals that on an average, 5 to 10 cases are being filed everyday with the grievance that the Police have not been
registering cases even though the complaints disclose the commission of cognizable offences. This case on hand is only a small illustration of the
problem of huge magnitude being faced by the general public of the State. This Court wonders as to how many more Judgments are needed to
make the Police force to realise their statutory obligation enjoined on them by Section 154 Cr.P.C. Each time when they are caught on the wrong
foot in the Writ Petitions, they seek apologies of the Court and request for closing of the Writ Petitions by stating that the grievance of the
petitioners is redressed by registering of the cases. The victims are vexed and this Court is disgusted with this attitude of the Police. It is because of
this reason that this Court has felt it appropriate to summon respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the Court and directed them to explain the reason for their
failure to register the FIR, though admittedly, the complaint filed by the petitioner disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
13. This Court has given directions to the Director General of Police to take stern measures against the Station House Officers for not registering
F.I.Rs. where the complaints disclosed commission of cognizable offences by issuing a Circular.
14. As a result of the indifferent approach of the Police to the law of the land, the victims are faced with the eventuality of approaching this Court
by spending huge money as well as their precious time. The present case is a paradigm of the general trend of the Police. The oft-repeated dicta of
this Court in cases of this nature has not been bringing any change in the mindset of the police. A situation has come to a pass where every report
given to the Police has to be followed by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This none too happy situation is being
brought about by the incorrigible attitude of the Police in failure to discharge their statutory obligation cast on them u/s 154 of the Code. Faced
with this situation, this Court finds it proper that respondent No. 6 is saddled with costs for the inordinate delay of 30 days in registering the F.I.R.,
though undoubtedly its contents constituted cognizable offence u/s 420 I.P.C. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 shall pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred and only) per day to the petitioner from 12-11-2013 till 12.12.2013 from his personal funds within two weeks from the date of receipt of
this order. The payment of these costs shall be entered in the Service Register of respondent No. 6.
15. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No. 43947/2013
filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
1 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68/2008, dt. 12-11-2013
2W.P. No. 33917 of 2013, dt. 23-12-2013