Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri. M. Prakash, S/o. Late C. Muthappa Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Sri. M. Vinayaka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 20269 of 2022 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocated Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. M. Prakash.
For the Respondent: Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, AGA.

Prompt registration of an FIR is essential when directed by a magistrate under Cr.P.C. 156(3).

Headnote:Criminal Investigation - Delayed FIR Registration - Cr.P.C. 156(3) - IPC 380, 503, 410, 414, 425, 442, 451 read with Section 34 - The court addressed the delayed registration of an FIR in response to a private complaint filed by the petitioner for various cognizable offenses. The court emphasized that when a magistrate directs investigation under Cr.P.C. 156(3), it is imperative to register an FIR promptly. The court cited the case of MOHD. YOUSUF VS. AFAQ JAHAN AND ANOTHER (2006) 1 SCC 627 to support this principle. The court found the delayed registration to be a serious misconduct and ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in charge of the police station.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for appointment of a higher-ranking police officer to investigate a crime arising from a private complaint and recover stolen materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was culpable negligence on the part of law enforcement due to delayed FIR registration and ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in charge.
Issues:
Delayed registration of FIR, duty of law enforcement agencies.
Ratio Decidendi:
Prompt registration of an FIR is imperative when directed by a magistrate under Cr.P.C. 156(3).
Final Decision:
Writ petition disposed; departmental inquiry ordered against the officer in charge; compliance report to be filed before the Court.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction for appointment of any other Police Officer higher in rank, to investigate the crime registered in Crime No.153 of 2022, which arose out of a private complaint registered in P.C.R.No.7840 of 2022, pending before the 31st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and further seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to recover materials that have been stolen from his house.

2. Heard the petitioner in-person and Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent in the morning hours of 26-03-2021, forcibly broke open the doors of residence of the petitioner, thieved many articles in the house which were home appliances, fitness equipment, vehicle keys among other valuable articles. The reason for the alleged incident, according to the narration was that, the petitioner had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4299 of 2020, which was seeking partition of the family properties. It is the averment that, to threaten the petitioner and force him to withdraw the partition suit, the alleged incident had been planted by the 1st respondent. Based upon the said incident, the petitioner registered a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 380, 503, 410, 414, 425, 442, 451 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 29-04-2022 directs registration of the complaint in PCR, registered by the petitioner on reference being made of the matter to the Cottonpet Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and also directs that the matter be listed on 26-07-2022. Though the Cottonpet Police received the certified copy of the order on 04.05.2022, the crime was not registered. On 26-07-2022, when the matter was posted before the Court, a reminder was also sent to the Police Station for registration of the crime and reporting such registration. Even then the crime was not registered. The crime comes to be registered only on 18-10-2022 after about 5½ months of reference being made by the learned Magistrate directing investigation to be conducted and a report to be submitted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is in that light the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court seeking transfer of investigation to the hands of any other police officer or agency owing to the fact that the Station House Officer of the Police Station showing no interest in registering the crime even.

5. The petitioner in-person would seek to contend that the private complaint that is registered was for cognizable offences. Noticing the fact that they were all cognizable offences, the learned Magistrate had directed conduct of investigation to Cottonpet Police Station. Despite a reminder on 26-07-2022, no crime is registered. He would allege that the Station House Officer is hand in glove with the 1st respondent/accused and therefore, seeks transfer of investigation to any other Police Station.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would seek to defend the action of registration of crime after 5½ months on the ground that the reference though was received on 04-05-2022, the file was misplaced from the table of the Inspector and the moment the file was traced, it was immediately registered. He would submit that the Inspector of Police who had mishandled the file had been placed under suspension and the present incumbent has filed an affidavit that such instances would not be repeated.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the party-in-person and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and the events need to be reiterated. The petitioner alleges that on 26.03.2021, the supporters of the 1st respondent forcib