Iyyankannu @ Kannan vs State and Another

N. Kannadasan, J.—Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on criminal side.

The above petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though a specific complaint is lodged, the respondent-police has not registered the said

complaint and pursuing with the investigation. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court with regard to the

powers of the police officer u/s 154, Cr. P.C. pertaining to the information received in cognizable cases.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would contend that even though the petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry,

he has not co-operated and further action need to be pursued.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties.

The main grievances of the petitioner herein is that even though the complaint preferred by him clearly makes put a case of cognizable in nature,

there is no justification on the part of the respondent-police in holding an enquiry without even registering FIR. A perusal of the complaint discloses

that the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. The Apex Court in its decision in Mohindro v. State of Punjab, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1087,

while interpreting the provision u/s 154 Cr. P.C. has observed that the concerned police officer should register a case if a case is made out on the

basis of the averment contained in the complaint, similarly, the Apex Court in its decision in Superintendent of Police v. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003

SCC (Cri) 1305, has observed as follows:

It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An

informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even

know how the occurrence took place, A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects

of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the

information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the

police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied

that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may

have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy

himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or

otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the course of

investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the

investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether

the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered u/s 156 of

the code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any

other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the

manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are

alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give

full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can"".

In the light of the settled principles of law, as stated supra, there is no justification for the respondent-police in not registering the case more

particularly in the light of the allegations as set out in the complaint submitted by the petitioner herein. Hence, there will be a direction to the first

respondent to register a case and pursue with the investigation in accordance with law. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly.