Dalip Kaur vs State of Punjab and ors.

K.S. Kumaran, J.

PetitionerDalip Kaur allegedly made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Barnala, against respondents 4 to 9 herein, stating that the 9th respondentLabh Kaur unauthorisedly allowed the privaterespondents to trespass into her house, that herself and her son were turned out, and that the privaterespondents had forcibly occupied their land also. She has also alleged that the privaterespondents herein broke the lock and her box and had committed theft of gold, which was in the box. She has further alleged that clothes and wheat were also taken. The receipt of this complaint is denied by the official respondents 1 to 3.

She had also made a representation to the Director General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police containing similar allegations. This complaint to the Station House Officer and the representation to the Director General of Police Punjab and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala have been produced as annexures P1 and P2 respectively. According to her the police have not registered the F.I.R. in spite of her visits to the Police Station number of times. Therefore, she has come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the respondents 1 to 3 namely the State of Punjab, the Director General of Police, Punjab and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, to register the F.I.R.

Notice of this application was sent to the respondents. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a reply. Though the respondents 7 to 9 are represented by counsel they have not filed any reply. Respondents 4 and 5 have been proceeded with exparte. Notice could not be served on sixth respondent for want of correct address, but for the present purpose I consider that it is not necessary to serve the sixthrespondent and therefore, notice to the sixthrespondent was dispensed with.

The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a reply urging that though Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Barnala had not received the complaint, an application was received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, on 23.11.1996. According to these respondents 1 to 3 on enquiry, it has been found that the case of the petitioner is false, that she is in the habit of filing petitions and therefore, the FIR was not registered.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

Section 154 Cr.P.C. has cast a duty on the Officer Incharge of a Police Station to register the F.I.R. on receipt of any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The allegations in the complaint and the representation (annexures P1 and P2) referred to above disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, it is the duty of the Station House Officer to register the F. I.R. and then to investigate the case. On the contrary, the officialrespondents cannot be heard to say so, in view of the clear provision contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) R.C.R. 383 (SC).

This Court also cannot examine the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint made by the petitioner, but has only to examine whether the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence. In the present case as pointed out already the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have to register the F.I.R. on the basis of annexure P2 dated 17.11.1996 through the concerned Police Station.

In the result petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to register the F.I.R. on the basis of annexure P2 and then proceed with it in accordance with law.