Pratibha Yadav vs State of M.P.

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the inherent powers of this Court and to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to take suitable action on the written complaint (Annexure A-1) dated 20.02.2014 by the petitioner.

Briefly stated the facts alleged in the petition are as follows:-

Husband of the petitioner is Kapil Yadav. Due to some dispute of transaction, there was altercation between Narendra and Kapil. On 18.12.2013 at about 03:00 PM, Narendra called Kapil on his cell phone and stated that a second hand Bolero Jeep at Datia is on sale. On the intimation Kapil left with his motorcycle to meet with Narendra. Monu Yadav is the brother of the petitioner, who called Kapil on his cell phone. On their conversation, he could know that Kapil was going with Narendra from Gwalior to Datia to see the Bolero Jeep. On 19.12.2013 at about 05:00 PM, Rajkumar Yadav a relative of the petitioner saw Kapil Yadav going along with Narendra Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Malkhan Yadav near Chirula Road. When Rajkumar Yadav talked to Kapil Yadav, all of them had consumed alcohol. They were towards Jhansi in two motorcycles.

Subsequently, on 21.12.2013, the brother of the petitioner received a message that someone else is operating the cell phone of Kapil Yadav by putting a different SIM card having number 97555-76209. When Monu called on this mobile, some one responded from other side and told his name as Arvind Pal @ Gatta, resident of Chirula. He also told that he got the cell phone in the field.

On 22.12.2013 when this was brought into the knowledge of the petitioner, she informed constable Shripal and Station House Officer, Police Station Chirula. The cell phone was seized. The motorcycle owned by Kapil was found near the Canal under Police Station Unao. The petitioner lodged a report but no action has been taken so far. The in-laws of the petitioner also treated her with cruelty and threatened her not to lodge any report against Narendra Yadav or else she will be thrown out of her matrimonial home.

The petitioner lodged repeated complaints on 24.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 04.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 at Police Station Kotwali Datia and Superintendent of Police, Datia but no action has been taken in this regard. Therefore, again on 20.02.2014, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Datia was given a written complaint. Copy of which is Annexure A-1.

The petitioner prayed that the respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to take suitable action on her complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others, , in which Hon''ble the Supreme Court has given the following guidelines:

(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.

(vii) 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 land 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.�

In the light of Lalita Kumari''s case (supra), without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to take suitable action in accordance with law under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint (Annexure A-1) made by the petitioner dated 20.02.2014. If the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence, action in this regard be taken within a period of 30 days. The complainant is directed to place copy of this order with a copy of complaint (Annexure A-1).

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.