Shobhaben vs State of Gujarat

@

R.M. Chhaya, J.—Heard Mr. I.H. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP for the respondent-State.

Rule. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

Considering the issue involved in the present petition and with consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of Criminal Complaint dated 25.11.2013 sent by the present petitioner and be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 herein to register the F.I.R. at Annexure-"A" and investigate the same in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending admission and/or final disposal of this Special Criminal Application this Hon''ble Court be pleased to order respondent No. 2 herein to register the F.I.R. at Annexure-"A" and submit its report of investigation forthwith in the interest of justice;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit the facts and circumstances of the case."

The prayers prayed for cannot be granted in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . However, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, , wherein it has been observed thus:-

"(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."

In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the said application in light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits.

With these observations, present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Rule is made absolute in the above terms only. Direct service is permitted.