Police authorities cannot refuse to register an FIR based on their own enquiry; they must register the FIR as furnished and conduct investigation in accordance with the law.

D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents Secretary, department of Home, Vidhana Soudha, bangalore and the Commissioner of Police, bangalore City and his subordinates in not acting in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in not registering the information which had been furnished by the petitioner on 10th July, 2001 containing allegations against one H. Jayanna, subinspector of Police attached to yeshwanthpur Police Station indicating that he had indulged in the act of intimidation, harassment, fraudulent extortion, cheating, demanding bribe from the petitioner and even blackmailing which are all cognizable offences and notwithstanding the petitioner furnishing such information not only to the 5th respondent of police but also to the superior officers including the Commissioner of Police no action has been taken, that the information was not even registered as is required to be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and follow up action is not being taken by the respondent and as such approached this court seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register the information furnished by the petitioner with the concerned police station and to take follow up action on the same. Petitioner had given representation to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City as per his complaint dated 10th July, 2001 (copy at Annexure E) and notwithstanding many reminders on action has been taken for registering the information as required under section 154 of the Code and it is alleged it constitutes dereliction of duty on the part of the Station House Officer, Yeshwanthpur. Police Station and also on the part of the superior Officers who had also been apprised of the incident.

( 2 ) A copy of the representation dated 10th July, 2001 given to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore (Annexure A) is produced. On a perusal of the same it is clear that it contains information about the commission of cognizable offences by the said sub-inspector Sri H. Jayanna.

( 3 ) THIS complaint has been followed by subsequent representation dated 2nd november, 2001 addressed to the Commissioner of police, Bangalore City and yet another complaint dated 9th April, 2002 addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, yeshwanthpur police station. In spvte of several requests no FIR has been registered in respect of the complaint given by the petitioner.

( 4 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is inter alia asserted that the writ petition is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed in limine, that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief sought for in the petition and the petition itself is misconceived and is not maintainable, that the said sub-inspector H. Jayanna being not a party to the writ petition, it suffers from non joinder of necessary party, that the petition averments are denied, that the petitioner himself is an accused in Crime No. 258/2001 for offences attracting Sections 63 and 64 of the Copy rights Act and Sections 78 and 79 of the trade Marks Act, that a case has been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 482, 485, 486, 489 and 420 of I. P. C. , that the petitioner in fact had been produced before the 1 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, bangalore City, that the police sub-Inspector had only visited the premises of the factory in connection with the investigation for the commission of such offences committed by the petitioner and that he was arrested and produced before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City etc.

( 5 ) IT is also asserted that in respect of the representation/complaint given by the petitioner and in pursuance of the same that a suitable endorsement has been issued to the said police sub-Inspector, that departmental proceeding has been initiated against the said police sub-Insp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document