Munni Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Palo, J.

With the consent of both parties, matter is heard finally and disposed of.

This revision has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

The factual matrix of the case in brief is that, the applicant is an old uneducated woman. She is not aware of rules and laws. She is residing at village Sirol District Gwalior. Survey No. 145 situated at village Sirol Tehsil, District Gwalior belonged to Gopal Sharma resident of Morar, Gwalior, which he purchased through a registered sale deed and his name was mutated in the revenue records. He sold this land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 23.9.2009. On the basis of which, name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, petitioner constructed two rooms on this land and started residing there with her family members.

Petitioner also obtained electric connection in this house. One Vakeel Singh with Raghuveer Singh, Jaganath Singh and other persons tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner as well as her family members. They have broken the boundary wall. Petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent No. 3 on 2.5.2011 and 18.6.2012, but the respondent No. 3 has not taken any step to protect the petitioner and her family members.

Petitioner filed a civil suit against Vakeel Singh before Civil Judge, Gwalior, in which an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Vakeel Singh filed miscellaneous appeal against the same order, which was rejected by the Appellate Court.

Thereafter Vakeel Singh filed a civil suit against the petitioner, stating that he has purchased some part of the land in question, from Gopal Sharma through a sale agreement, which was previously executed by Gopal Sharma in his favour. This civil suit for specific performance of contract and injunction, in which Gopal Singh was made a party, was turned down by the Court below. In the civil suit Vakeel Singh filed document which was a sale agreement on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, stating that the agreement was signed by Gopal Sharma. Gopal Sharma denied the factum of the agreement by filing an affidavit before the trial Court.

The present petitioner made a written complaint to respondents No. 2 and 3 (Annexure P/1). Though it is mandatory for respondents No. 2 and 3 to register FIR and to investigate the matter. They wanted to protect illegal act of the accused which is contrary to law.

Considered the petition in light of the guide lines issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, (2013) 12 AD 209 : AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) CriLJ 470 : (2013) 6 CTC 353 : (2014) 1 JCC 1 : (2013) 14 JT 399 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 979 : (2013) 13 SCALE 559 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCJ 68 , the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held in para -120 held as under:

"120) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."

The present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 that if cognizable offence is made out on the report of the petitioner, action be initiated pursuant to directions given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).

Petitioner is directed to provide fresh copy of complaint dated to respondents No. 2 and 3 within a period of one week.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.