Jasvir Singh vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Police has registered a case under sections 307/326/324/323,34 IPC against Jasvir Singh and others. FIR No. 30 dated April 18, 1995, was lodged by Gurmukh Singh, whereupon the offence was registered under the aforesaid sections. The petitionerJasvir Singh filed this bail application (Cr. Misc. No. 10482M of 1995) under section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by order dated July 19, 1995. On this date, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that his wife sustained five injuries in this very incident. Her injury report was sent by the doctor to the concerned Police Station Samrala along with the injury report of the complainant. The statement of petitioner''s wife was also recorded in the hospital by the police, but no FIR was recorded. In view of this allegation the police was directed to file reply to this objection.

The respondent filed a reply, wherein it is admitted that on the report lodged by Gurmukh Singh (FIR No. 30 dated April 18, 1995) a case under sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. It is further admitted that the petitioner''s wife Smt. Swaran Kaur made certain allegations against the members of the complainant party in her statement. Investigation was conducted and the Investigating Officer ASI Atma Singh found the matter to be suspicious and fabricated. Thereafter he recorded DDR No. 9 dated April 17, 1995, under rule 24/4 PPR. Then SI Ravel Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Samrala also visited the spot and verified the report of ASI Atma Singh and he also found the matter to be suspicious and fabricated. During investigation conducted by him, no independent person from the village supported the version of Smt. Swaran Kaur. He also recorded DDR No. 32 dated April 21, 1995, to that effect. Copies of both the DDRs are filed as Annexure R3 and R4. It is also averred that it was further verified by Mr. J.S. Dhillon, D.S.P. Samrala, who also found the version of Smt. Swaran Kaur to be false and baseless. Thus, no FIR was registered on the allegations made by Smt. Swaran Kaur in her statement.

Petitioner''s counsel, relying on Kuldip Singh v. The State, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 498 , contended that if police receives information about the commission of a cognizable offence, the police has no option but to register the case and proceed with the investigation under the provisions of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. After recording of FIR, the police can decide not to investigate in terms of section 157(1) Cr.P.C. if there is reasonable doubt about the commission of the offence. Police has, however, no option to refuse registration of the case. Police cannot first hold preliminary enquiry and then refuse registration as a result of that enquiry. In this case exactly the same procedure is adopted by the police. Instead of recording the FIR, based on the statement made by Smt. Swaran Kaur, the police chose to hold preliminary enquiry and recorded DDRs Annexures R3 and R4 and ultimately no FIR was registered. In view of the settled legal position, the police was required to first of all register the case and proceed with the investigation under provisions of chapter XII Cr.P.C.

In view of this legal position, the police of Police Station Samrala is hereby directed to register an FIR on the basis of the statement of Smt. Swaran Kaur and then to held investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., and thereafter to decide whether offences are prima facie made out or not or whether a case is made out to file challan before the Court or to submit a report under section 157(1) Cr.P.C. With this direction, the petition is disposed of.