Jeeto and others vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Petitioner Jeeto and others seek a direction for registration of a criminal case for demolition of a residential building of the petitioner and for investigation of the same.

It is alleged that there was a waste land known as chhappar outside the village abadi. It was 7 to 8 feet deep. There was extreme shortage of space for living of the petitioners. With the consent of the villagers, the petitioners filled up the chhappar upto ground level putting hard labour of years and planted trees. They had set up a khurli for tethering cattle therein. Respondents 4 and 5 are alleged to have mixed up with the antisocial elements. They demolished part of the cattle shed and other part of the building and cut the trees. Since a cognizable offence is alleged to have committed, it is prayed that the First Information Report be got registered and matter investigated.

Notice was issued to the respondents. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it was pointed that the land in question was kept for throwing cow dung. Petitioners have no right, title or interest therein. Enquiry regarding the alleged loss was conducted by Superintendent or Police and was found to be without basis. Furthermore it was contended that there was a compromise between the parties. Similarly, respondents 4 and 5 have contested the petition. In replication the petitioners assert that the compromise is not correct and their thumb impressions had been obtained after calling them to the police station.

The short question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the First Information Report should have been registered or not. This question had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that once it is disclosed that a cognizable offence had been committed, the First Information Report should be registered, when it satisfies the requirement of Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In paragraph 32, the Supreme Court held :

"It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed from, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information."

Keeping in view the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion that once a cognizable offence is shown to have been committed on basis of the complaint, the First Information Report must be registered.

In that event, it had been pointed that there was an enquiry and the report of the enquiry was not favourable to the petitioners, therefore, the First Information Report was not registered. But there is no overemphasising the fact that this question is to be looked into after the First Information Report is registered. The police cannot refuse to register a case once information regarding cognizable offence is brought to its notice. It may investigate as per law thereafter. A similar argument had been advanced before the Delhi High Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. State, 1994(2) RCR 498. In paragraph 34 while repelling such an argument it was held :

"In our view the legal position is clear that on information being laid before the police about the commission of a cognizable offence the police has no option but to register the case and then to proceed with investigation of the case under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. The police can also decide not to investigate in terms contemplated by Section 157(1) of the Code. The Police has no right to refuse registration of a case on information being laid before it about commission of cognizable offence and instead proceed with enquiry and refuse registration as a result of the said enquiry. If it is left to be determined by the Police to decide in which cases of disclosure of commission of cognizable offence it would first hold preliminary enquiry and then decide to register or not to register the case, it would also lead to delay in registration of the crime and in the meantime the material evidence may not be available. The conduct of enquiry itself may entail a long period. There may be then challenge to the said enquiry. The enquiry of the nature suggested by the respondent is not permissible in law."

The position herein is identical. Not only one finds in agreement with the said view point but suffice to add that the investigation has to proceed after recording of the First Information Report and not before that. The contention for the purposes of the present order of the respondents has to be repelled.

As regards the alleged compromise the parties had poles apart. Petitioners contend that their thumb impressions were obtained at the police station. This court will not express any opinion but leave it to the authorities to do so and look into it during the course of investigation.

For these reasons, the petition is allowed. It is directed that a First Information Report be recorded on the basis of the complaint made, copy of which is Annexure P3. Thereafter the police may investigate the same as per the provisions of law.