Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to register a cause against respondents 4 to 6 in respect of an occurrence reported to respondent No. 3, the Station House Officer, wherein the commission of cognizable offences is said to have been disclosed. An application was made before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, respondent No. 2, a copy of which has been placed on record wherein it was alleged that the Station House Officer, Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur was not taking any interest in this matter because of his alleged complicity with the accused persons. Representation, copy Annexure P4, is the first complaint in writing made by the petitioner before the Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur. Since no action was taken by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, the petitioner approached this Court.

Notice of motion was issued to respondent No. 3 in the first instance and a reply was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by Jasdev Singh Sindhu, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sunam. It was alleged in para 2 of the reply, inter alia, as under :

"On an application submitted by Jagtar Singh petitioner the facts were probed into by way of two different enquiries held by S.I. Nachhatar Singh Incharge Police Post Cheema and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sunam. During the enquiry by Deputy Superintendent of Police Post Cheema and Deputy Superintendent of Police Sunam, it was proved on record that Jagtar Singh himself purchased three stamp papers out of which two were worth twenty rupees each, while the third one was worth Rs. 75/. On the stamp per of Rs. 75/ Power of Attorney was written, which was entered in the register maintained by Shakti Kumar Stamp Vendor and Sham Lal Petition Writer scribed the same at the instance of Jagtar Singh petitioner in favour of Bhagirath Rai respondent No. 4. This was also entered at Sr. No. 424 on page No. 95 of the said Petition Writer. Copy of which is annexure R1 and its English translation is R1/T. On the stamps paper of Rs. 20/ one agreement to sell 28 kanals five marlas of land in favour of Surjit Singh Nambardar of Village Shahpur Kalan, copy of which is annexure RII and its English translation is RII/T. On another agreement to sell 27 Kanals and 12 marlas of land in favour of Surjit Singh was executed copy of which is annexure RIII and its English translation is RIII/T and both these agreements were attested by Shashi Mohan Notary Public Sunam, the entry to this effect being at Sr. No. 904 and 905 of his register."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. The only requirement for the application of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is that the occurrence must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and once the commission of a cognizable offence in an occurrence is shown then the authorities referred to in Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. are required to take action in the matter by registering an FIR. For properly appreciating the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. which reads as under :

"154. Information in cognizable cases. (1) 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.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."

The provisions of the statute as contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C., it may be pointed out, are not overridden by any rules alleged to be framed for the police entitling them to make any enquiry into a complaint or representation for registration of FIR except with the limited object of ascertaining prima facie if the occurrence disclosed commission of cognizable offences. Any detailed enquiry conducted by the Police authorities for ascertaining the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint is contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that after the registration of the FIR an investigation into the case is to be conducted as per the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation aforesaid cannot be undertaken prior to the registration of the FIR.

In view of what has been said above, the stand taken in the written statement is not in accordance with law. This petition has merit and is allowed to the extent that a direction is issued to respondents 2 and 3 i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and the Station House Officer, Sunam, to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner, copy Annexure P4 within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and in case the averments made therein are found to be genuine and disclosing the commission of cognizable offences then necessary follow up action thereon shall be taken keeping in view the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C.

Disposed of accordingly.