A. Arputha Mary vs The Superintendent of Police

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—The petitioner has come forward with the present application to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register the complaint dated 05.04.2014 given by the petitioner and to take suitable action and file a final report.

The case of the petitioner is that the proposed accused has fabricated the documents with regard to the property of the petitioner. It has been represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property of the petitioner has been grabbed.

Mr.Sulthan Basha, learned counsel for R4 has stated that he has not sold the property to the proposed accused persons and he has stated that there are two Saverimuthu and impersonating one Saverimuthu, the property was sold to the accused persons.

The learned counsel for the proposed accused has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property from one Kulanthai Swamy and there is a civil suit in O.S.No. 34 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai is also pending and unless and until the civil suit is decided, the question of investigating into the criminal complaint does not arise.

The petitioner stated that if the complaint would be investigated, it would through a light about the fraud committed by the accused persons.

Heard on either side.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the decision in Writ Petition (Criminal)No. 68 of 2008 and batch in the matter of the Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, has held as follows:

110) Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.

Conclusion/Directions:

111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

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 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 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.

When a complaint is given, it is the duty of the police to ascertain whether any cognizable offence are made out and in case, any cognizable offence is made out, they are bound and duty to register a complaint.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that enquiry is pending on the complaint of the petitioner and a civil suit is also pending between the parties and hence, they are unable to proceed with the matter.

Admittedly, the complaint, which is the subject matter of this petition is not yet disposed of by the police and the same is pending. The police is directed to enquire into the complaint given by the petitioner and to register a complaint, if any cognizable offence is made out by following the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Writ Petition (Criminal)No. 68 of 2008 and batch in the matter of the Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, . As the civil case is pending, this Court expects the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai to expedite the trial in O.S.No. 34 of 2014 and to complete the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on day to basis and render a finding on merits.

Though the petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and not under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial and disposal on the matter in question, since it is a question of land grabbing as alleged by the petitioner, to give a quietus to the entire matter on hand, this Court made the aforesaid observation in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

With the above observation and direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

After pronouncing the order, it is informed by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) that the F.I.R. has been registered in crime No. 47 of 2014 under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and r/w Section 120 IPC on 05.11.2014.

Recording the same, the criminal original petition is disposed of.